text:
Talk:Cameron Todd Willingham

News reports cast doubt on fire investigation
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0504200146apr20,1,1265821.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

I do not have the time to follow this up, but it's hit the news that this man may in fact have been innocent. The alleged murders were the result of a fire, supposedly arson. Experts testified at his trial that it was arson, and it (presumably) followed that Willingham was the only one who could have said it. This scientific testimony was the primary basis of his conviction.

However, it now turns out that the theories these experts used have been discredited, and the fire may not have been arson at all.

A very similar case involving one Ernest Willis, also on death row, resulted in the prisoner being exonerated.

Commitees are being set up and fingers are being pointed. I don't have the patience for detail hunting, but certainly this man's wiki writeup deserves a little more--and perhaps a link in the capital punishment entry under "arguments against." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.132.57 (talk • contribs) 00:13, April 21, 2005 (UTC)

Other evidence
Youve ignored most of the evidence. His abuse, lack of emotion after the death of his children, deciding not to call firefighters after the fire started and sitting in the yard watching the house burn.

I've edited the page to show the other info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smb2a (talk • contribs) 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC) --smb2a

 * I think this article gives too much weight to Willingham's alleged lack of emotion. Typically the prosecution in cases similar to this can find witnesses willing to testify that the defendant could have been sadder or done more.  Some may be willing to lie after being told that there was clear evidence of arson.  At any rate, alleged emotional reactions are very  unreliable as proof of anything.  Not everyone jumps up and down, shouting with glee, when told they won a million dollars.  Nor does everyone cry hysterically when faced with some tragedy.

 * The fact is that there is no credible evidence of arson. Had false evidence not been used, nobody would be discussing Willingham's emotional reactions.  --Danras (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

 * What about the eye witness testimony? Mainly that he crouched in his front yard and watched the house burn rather than run to his neighbors for help. How could his emotional state not be relevent in light of this behavior?
 * --smb2a 1:12, 18 December 2007

 * As for the idea that he crouched in his front yard and watched the house burn, many people would go into shock at the sight of a fire that apparently killed their children. He may have thought it was too late to save them. Besides, how reliable is this witness testimony? Some witnesses claimed that his motive was that his children were interfering with his darts games. If that's legitimate, then who knows how many petty things he may have done to annoy that witness? Perhaps, by the logic of those who accused him, the witnesses were trying to send him to prison because he was always borrowing their money, and not returning it, or any other silly reason. --67.193.153.105 (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to edit the wiki entry, but realized that I am terrible at it, so I deleted my edits. I wanted to include reports that Stacy Kuykendall's brother, Ronnie Kuykendall, stated in sworn affidavits that Stacy gathered the family together and told them that Willingham confessed to her. Willingham allegedly confessed the reason he set the fire was because he was upset that Stacy was planning to divorce him. I will provide the link, if someone who is more familiar with how to embed links wants to include this information, then please do so. I do think it should be included in this wikipedia entry because it was a sworn affidavit, but that's just my opinion. http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/1689814.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semi138 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased BS. The only evidence that exists against Camerod Todd Willingham is testimony. Not a single shred of tangible evidence exists that proves Willingham did the crime for which he was convicted. All the 'evidence' of arson has been disproved by competent experts. Hurst concluded the fire was accidental which completely absolves Willingham of any wrongdoing regardless of unreliable testimony from an angry ex wife and contradictory statements from neighbors. The man is innocent and the page should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.138.40 (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That last comment is just silly. First, testimony is important evidence. Physical evidence is not necessary for a conviction. Second, Hurst did not conclude that the fire was accidental; he concluded that the original determination that it was intentional was flawed, and that in fact the fire could have been accidental. And the earlier explanations for Willingham's odd behavior in watching the fire, while possible, nonetheless are a bit of a stretch. His behavior is probative, even if not conclusive. Willingham has not remotely been proven innocent. At most, Hurst's conclusions, as well as the recanted testimony, suggest that the reasonable doubt standard should not have been found satisfied. It is quite possible that Hurst was innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.66.214 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

POV info at the bottom of the page
Whoever keeps doing that, childing insults and swears do not belong here and only weaken your position. Smb2a (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)smb2a

James Grigson additions
I've never heard anybody but Kevorkian called "Dr. Death." Is this information really reliable? Shouldn't there be a direct reference to support if so? RivGuySC (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to locate references. He was reportedly called Dr. Death because he testified at more than 100 sentencing hearings at which inmates were sentenced to death. If he testified at a convict's sentencing hearing, he was almost like the grim reaper as his appearance made it was almost predictable that the convict was going to die. In the movie "The Thin Blue Line," convict Randall Dale Adams complained about the discrepancy between Grigson's superficial examination of himself and the conclusion he gave at Adams' sentencing hearing. The movie's filmmaker originally planned to make a documentary about Grigson. In the book, "Chasing Justice," Kerry Max Cook recounts how the prosecution forced him to see Grigson without his attorney's consent. The prosecution needed Cook to meet with Grigson, however briefly, to provide a basis for Grigson's predictable testimony against Cook. Both Adams and Cook were exonerated. --Danras (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy tag
I'm not sure why was added and not  was not. The editor who added it did not make a comment here but it seems clear that a lot of guilt-supporting text which was uncited has already been deleted rather than citations added for them. There's not been a corresponding scrub of innocence-supporting uncited text. If this continues we might have some WP:POV or WP:WEIGHT issues. patsw (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Drive-by tagged here. 78.34.205.77 (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Removed. As I mentioned in the edit summary, it all seems to be cited now.  If it is not, add the tag back and detail why here. patsw (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Article from The New Yorker magazine: "Trial by Fire. Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?"
Link: [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all Trial by Fire. Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?]

Read it for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubican (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * As a template:cite news template:
 * 19 pages of advocacy for the point of view that Willingham did not set the fire in 1991. Now, if you are also advocate for the point of view that Willingham did not set the fire, follow these steps:
 * Scrub from the article any accurate, but uncited, facts supporting guilt.
 * Add liberally from Grann, Grann's sources, and the Innocence Project -- back-stopped by citations.
 * The result will lead the Wikipedia reader to wonder what sort of dummies the defense, the trial judge, the trial jury, the appeals court, and the governor were to have accepted the original evidence submitted at the trial. A good article is going to include some of the evidence supporting guilt and provide the due weight to the post-execution advocacy of Willingham's innocence. patsw (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The case presented by the New Yorker is very convincing, but that does not mean that the Wikipedia article should completely ignore the evidence for his guilt that was originally presented. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The New Yorker article also completely presents the evidence as presented at the trial. It also talks about how the non-scientific "theories" used by the arson investigators were demonstrated false with the investigation into the Lime Street Fire. Flashovers can make burn and puddle patterns that look like the classic signs of arson. This Wikipedia article should present the evidence that was presented at trial, but also explain how fire investigation at the time was unscientific and how that has been shown in the later years. Kevin143 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 * To patsw: The above suggestion to "Scrub from the article any accurate, but uncited, facts supporting guilt" reeks of NPOV violations.  Why are you suggesting that editors specifically remove (i.e., "scrub") facts that are accurate ... and only when said accurate facts support Willingham's guilt?  You are clearly pushing an agenda.  And that clearly violates NPOV.  And, to Tim Pierce: you reply "agreed" to this suggestion?  Why's that?  This is hardly the way to produce a decent Wikipedia article.  The correct approach is not to remove accurate (but uncited) facts, simply because they support Willingham's guilt.  Rather, the preferred approach is to insert an "add citations" tag, or some such.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

 * I mean that I agree with Patsw that taking such an approach would "lead the Wikipedia reader to wonder what sort of dummies the defense, the trial judge... were to have accepted the original evidence submitted at the trial." It is not acceptable to wipe the article clean of a discussion of the evidence that convicted him and present only the arguments in favor of his innocence.  The article will have to address both in an evenhanded manner. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the clarification. Your initial statement of "Agreed" could easily be interpreted to mean that you agreed with the entirety of patsw's post to which you responded.  I agree with the statements made immediately above in your clarification.  The article must be even-handed and not favor either guilt or innocence.  I am still eager to receive a reply from patsw, however, addressing his/her proposal to purge the article of "guilt pointing" facts.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

Proposal
To support WP:NPOV, either: Rationale. Since the article was scrubbed of uncited facts supporting guilt and a lot of text added to support innocence, the current article is written with a point of view supporting innocence and gives undue weight to those sources supporting same. patsw (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Add a full "evidence of guilt" section with cites or
 * 2) Drop the "evidence of innocence" section, and leave one sentence calling it a disputed verdict and let the reader read the footnotes for detail. patsw (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The thing is there is not one shred of evidence that supports his guilt. That is the issue brought to light in the New Yorker article. By all appearances the evidence that would/should have set him free was ignored.  texas has a long rich history of convicting and even executing innocent people. I have spent 40 years living in this state and it's pretty obvious innocent people get executed or just convicted on a routine basis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

 * There is not one shred of evidence that supports his guilt? Huh?  Where on earth did you get that from?  At last check, there was a full and fair trial -- supported by cross examination -- in which a jury found Willingham guilty and sentenced him to death.  And, furthermore ... said trial, guilty verdict, and death sentence were repeatedly upheld through various appeals.  That all seems to me like, umm, evidence that supports guilt.  I didn't attend the trial and I wasn't on the jury ... but, I'm just saying.  One article, written by one individual, 18 years after the crime -- and 17 years after the trial -- does not, in one fell swoop, overturn all that preceded it ... whether the article is convincing and persuasive or not.  There's a process in place.  And that process produced much more than "one shred of evidence that supports Willingham's guilt".  To claim otherwise ignores clear and plain facts.  And devoids your argument of any credibility.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

 * Furthermore ... you make the following claim: "Texas has a long, rich history of convicting and even executing innocent people. I have spent 40 years living in this state and it's pretty obvious innocent people get executed." This statement is preposterous at best.  Please provide the specific names and examples of innocent people executed by Texas.  You are clearly privy to information that the rest of the world does not have, and I would be interested to see the names and examples to which you refer.  That is, the innocent people that Texas has "obviously and routinely" executed.  If these occurrences are both obvious and routine, you should have no trouble providing several specific names, cases, and examples of such.  I can't wait to see your list.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

This conversation runs a real risk of turning ugly pretty quickly, but there's no need for that. The main fact of this case is that The New Yorker thought highly enough that there is doubt about the execution of Willingham to print a long piece about the case. That does not overturn a legal conviction. However, if said conviction ever were overturned, its punishment could not be, and that is a point worth considering. It appears from the New Yorker piece, that more than one person connected with the case either had doubts as the investigation and trial unfolded or has doubts now. Whatever our personal opinions may be, this article should present both sides. There was an investigation, a trial, and some sort of legal appeals and appeals for clemency; the appearance of an article 5 years after his execution that casts doubt on the results of those proceedings does not mean they didn't happen. However - that also doesn't mean the conviction and execution were correct, and that point of view should certainly be in the article as well.

On the matter of providing a list of wrongfully executed people, let's not go there, for a few reasons:
 * 1) "Wrongful execution" is a matter of opinion rather than fact. Some people think capital punishment is wrong under any circumstance, so it would be hard to sway them. But there are varying degrees of opinion as to how "bad" a crime must be to merit this ultimate punishment, and we should understand that different editors will have different opinions on this point.
 * 2) Wikipedia is not a court, and it is not our job to decide whether Willingham was innocent or guilty. It is merely for us to present what others have written about the subject.
 * 3) Our personal opinions will necessarily color how we approach the matter, but our ultimate goal should be a neutral article, regardless of those opinions.
 * 4) It is accepted (and yes, I can find citations for this claim) that people are wrongfully convicted of crimes all the time. They are later released, sometimes a dozen or more years later. Furthermore, this happens in death-row cases as well (also supportable by citations). While this does not mean Willingham was wrongfully convicted, there is certainly precedent.
 * 5) The idea that "we cannot cite a case where wrongful execution has happened, therefore this is not such a case" smacks of WP:OSE. It's a logical fallacy. Given that wrongful convictions are documented - even in death-row cases - it is only a matter of time before we make this ultimate mistake, if it hasn't already happened. Death penalty proponents may not want to admit it, but since we are all capable of making mistakes, and since we have documented cases of death-row inmates being exonerated, why should we assume we've always gotten it right? Likewise, death penalty opponents use borderline cases and the possibility that we might get it wrong to argue we should never do it, but that is beside the point of this (or any individual person's) article.

There will likely be an irrefutable case of misapplied justice at some point. Whether this is (or will turn out to be) such a case is not the point of this article; that cannot be settled by a Wikipedia discussion, so it's pointless to try. Our focus is to write a good article, because this is an encyclopedia. It is not a court of public opinion. Frank |  talk  14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. I think it would be impossible at this point to reduce the pro-innocence content of the article, the only way to provide an NPOV and due weight to the innocence supporting content is adding guilt-supporting content in summary form. The important thing is that adding such content is not an invitation to re-argue the case before a jury of Wikipedia readers. patsw (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I can hardly believe what I am reading here. To Frank ... you make a number of points -- some valid, some not.  But, we are not here to debate that.  (Example: You assume the inevitability of an innocent person being executed, whether in the past or in the future.  But, that is your assumption only.)  I was asking the prior editor for the names of executed innocents that he/she claims exist both routinely and obviously in Texas.  I was not aware of such a list ... and I would like to see whether Willingham's name is on said purported list.  To patsw ... it was indeed you who strongly advocated purging this article of correct facts that point to guilt.  I still invite you to reply to my post in the above section on this Talk Page (entitled, Article from The New Yorker magazine: "Trial by Fire. Did Texas Execute an Innocent Man?").  So, to both Frank and patsw ... yes, this article and its Talk Page conversations do indeed run a real risk of turning ugly pretty quickly, as you state.  But, I would also proffer that both Frank and patsw are contributing to said risk by some of your statements posted above.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009

 * Furthermore ... a concept (and a Newsweek piece) that are both interesting and relevant to this Willingham article: the United States Supreme Court has held that executing an innocent man does not violate the United States Constitution.  (See Innocent Until Executed: We Have No Right to Exoneration.)  I shall be adding this information and citation into the Willingham article soon.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 5 September 2009)

My assumption of the inevitability of a mistake being made is not directly related to or presuming that this case is an example. But otherwise, do you presume that as humans we will never make mistakes? There are plenty of documented cases of people convicted and later exonerated ...even death-row inmates. If we know that to be the case, the next logical step is that an execution has or will be incorrectly administered. Again - I'm not saying I have an opinion as to this case, but it's hardly fair to say "show me the example" as a means of saying "it has never happened", which is one way of interpreting what I see above. I'm trying to avoid that by saying "it isn't relevant to this article" and "it's a debate that can't be effectively had in this venue so why try?" Frank |  talk  18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * To Frank - As I said above, we are not here to debate this particular issue. And as I said above, a prior editor asserted that Texas routinely and obviously executes innocent people.  I was asking that editor to provide the purported list of said executed innocents.  But ... to reply to your immediately preceding post ... you admit that it is an assumption on your part.  Fine.  It is an assumption that I do not share.  To say, as you put it ... "show me an example" ... is the same as saying, essentially, please provide a source.  In other words, your (or anyone's) assumptions hold no place here in Wikipedia.  Sourced statements, however, do.  So -- yes -- to that extent, I was indeed stating "it only exists if you can show me an example of it" ... meaning, "it can only be reported on Wikipedia if you can back it up with sources".  The prior editor seemed convinced that Texas obviously and routinely executes innocent people.  I was asking for sources to back up that claim.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

 * Furthermore: You state that "the next logical step is that an execution has or will be incorrectly administered".  I disagree that that is "the next logical step".  One could easily counter-argue that ... the fact that these innocents are ultimately removed from death row is proof in and of itself that the appellate process works and, thus, that no innocents are indeed executed.  Why can't my interpretation be "the next logical step"?  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

I made the observation on the talk page that guilt-supporting facts (true, but uncited) were scrubbed from the article. I didn't do the scrub. My edits so far were to add some dates, citations, and to correct a incomplete quote. I'm taking the above as a consensus to add some guilt-supporting evidence with cites as balance for the article. I want to remind editors, that this is not a place to debate, but to reach a consensus on editing an article which serves one goal: informing the reader about Cameron Willingham in a manner that presents multiple points of view consistent with the Wikipedia policies. patsw (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 * To patsw: Thanks for the clarification.  Your intent may have been to make said observation.  However, if you go back and re-read your post, it sounds more like you were directing other editors as to how to approach writing this article.  Your exact words were: "Now, if you are also advocate for the point of view that Willingham did not set the fire, follow these steps: Scrub from the article any accurate, but uncited, facts supporting guilt. Add liberally from Grann, Grann's sources, and the Innocence Project -- back-stopped by citations."  Thus, you intended to say "Here is my observation about this article ...".  But what you in fact said was more like "Please do the following things within this article if you feel that Willingham is not guilty".  Thanks for the clarification.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 6 September 2009)

Victims of the fire
From much of what I have read, the three victims are usually described as Willingham's daughters. However, I notice that the oldest girl had a surname of Kuykendall and the younger twins had a surname of Willingham. Kuykendall is the surname of Willingham's then-wife, Stacy, who is also the mother of the three girls. Does anyone know anything more about this discrepancy? Was the oldest a step-daughter, perhaps? Or not even his daughter at all? It seems rather odd that the couple would have three children -- only a year or so apart -- and name the oldest with the wife's surname and the youngest with the husband's surname. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro, 7 September 2009)

 * From several sources I have read, Willingham and Kuykendall were married in September 1991. That is three months before the fire which killed the children.  My speculation is that for the purpose of recording the birth, Willingham was not offered, or would not agree to be named as father of the first child, Amber, and then agreed to be recorded as the father of the twins, Karmon and Kameron. patsw (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * News reports covering the subject and bothering with the children surname usually reproduce justice documents that indeed use the mother's surname for the elder girl. The obituary that was published Dec. 26, 1991 by the local newspaper used the father's surname however It is however one of the very few documents available online that precedes the legal action and the status of the fatehr as chief suspect. This has perhaps influenced the shift from usage to legal status of the girl. ---Dwarfpower (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Also ... information printed in obituaries is never really "official" (as are court documents) ... it is simply whatever information the family gives to the funeral home and/or newspaper. At this point in history -- a few days after the fire -- the wife did not suspect / know that the husband was involved.  So, perhaps when preparing the obituary for the funeral director / newspaper, they dispensed with the "formality" that the oldest girl's surname (technically) was Kuykendall.  Just my theory.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

Rename proposal
As the article does not deal with Todd Willingham but with the arsoin case and with the search of a first legally innocent executed person, shouldn't we move the whole content to a new article and write about Willingham here, pointing to the case article ? ---Dwarfpower (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I would say "no". First, I doubt that there is enough material to warrant two separate articles.  Second, this article is indeed about Willingham and his legal case ... so, it is appropriate to include both his biographical information as well as his legal case information.  Third, Willingham's is not the first suspected (or argued) case of an innocent person being executed ... it is merely the case de jour (resulting from the very recent The New Yorker piece).  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)
 * then someone will have to seriously extends ( well arctually write ) the biographical portion... ---Dwarfpower (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Read again, this is the first case since the death penalty was re-enstated where an innocent man was executed. and based on scientific examination of the evidence he was clearly innocent of the crime for which he was charged.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Response below. Frank  |  talk  15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to consider
this will likely be the first case of an innocent man being exectuted in modern times and therefore the article is likely to get a lot of activity. I read where alot of the claims by the DA are stated in the article as if they are facts. I just made one change where the article said Willingham wanted to burn his daughters to death to cover up child abuse AS IF THERE HAD EVER BEEN ANY CHILD ABUSE. His wife said there had never been any child abuse and that he would have never hurt them and that the kids were spoiled rotten by him. Virtually every claim made by the prosecution was a lie so it is very important that when you quote the DA or their claims that you balance it with other evidence, otherwise it appears wiki is fostering those claims. finally, the based on modern science the arson claim was thoroughly proven to be false and at least 3 experts came to the same conclusion. if there was no arson then there was no crime. keep that in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Let's remember that we are about verifiability. The piece in The New Yorker is detailed and looks well-researched, but it is only one piece of the puzzle. We will not decide this here; we merely report it. What is currently verifiable is that he was convicted of the murders. Regarding the statement that "if there was no arson then there was no crime", we must again consider WP:V and also WP:OR. We don't know whether there was a crime or not; we know (to some degree) what transpired in the court system. These are not the same thing. Frank  |  talk  15:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * First of all the New Yorker is not the only paper following this tragedy. The Chicago paper hired a  fire expert who came to the same conclusions regarding the arson "evidence"  against Willingham.  I believe 5 nationally known experts have all weighed in on the evidence each of them came to the same conclusion - there was no evidence of arson.  i realize Wiki does not try people or claim their innocence or guilt, but the was much of the article is unsubstantiated claims and it appears Wiki is gving the DA a mouth piece to make untrue statements such as Willingam abusing his kids in the past.  His own wife (who later changed her mind and belived he did it) said he never hurt any of the kids, yet the article made no mention of that vital fact.  His wife said "our kids were spoiled rotten" and that Willingahm never abused them, in spite of what the DA said.  So if you are going to report it please do not ignore one side and just make unsubstantiated claims by the DA and his ilk. I'm looking for NPOV and much of what I'm reading is very POV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Add that information into the article, then, if you have a reliable source that indicates what you have claimed. Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

 * The main argument against the investigation and supported by the new yorker paper and Beyler's report is lack of methodology, lack of scientific approach and bias, teh expert neglecting to study all possibility. You cannot claim Willingham innocent as long as it is not proven. All current study opposing the trial only say the jury was not presented with the material necessary to conclude to guilt beyond any reasonnable doubt. None of these document say he was innocent nor guilty. As long as innocence is not proven, Willingham is not the first legally innocent executed. He might be an innocent executed, but not a legally innocent.... ---Dwarfpower (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The statements from the prosecutor do not appear in the article because the Wiki-editing cabal of which I am a member have decided they are "true", they appear in the article because Willingham was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and a good article summarizes the evidence and testimony that led to that verdict. Quoting the prosecutor from a verifiable and reliable source just seems to me to be a good way to do that. patsw (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree with patsw 100% on this point. Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.26.82 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune investigation
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-texas-execute-0824-082aug25,0,5812073.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * The New Yorker author responds to claims made by the original prosecutor who recently said even with no evidence of arson WIllingham was still guilty. How crazy is that? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/09/david-grann-response-to-jackson.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Not crazy at all. Someone can be guilty of a capital murder, without committing an arson.  Capital murder can be founded upon several theories -- arson being only one of them.  In fact, if I recall correctly ... the prosecutor said that this case was predicated on a multiple child murder theory, not an arson theory.  I will search for that quote when I can.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

 * OK, I found it. Here goes.  This quote is by John H. Jackson.  Jackson, now a judge, was one of the prosecutors in the Willingham case.  The link is here: Willingham guilt never in doubt.  Jackson stated: "The Willingham case was charged as a multiple child murder, and not an arson-murder to achieve capital status. I am convinced that in the absence of any arson testimony, the outcome of the trial would have been unchanged, a fact that did not escape the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. While anti-death penalty advocates can muster some remarkably good arguments, Todd Willingham should not be anyone's poster child."  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 8 September 2009)

 * You say that Willingham "can be guilty of a capital murder, without committing an arson." Wrong.  If he didn't commit arson, then the fire was accidental and he did not commit murder.  The point that Jackson is trying to make is that Willingham could have been found guilty of murder even without evidence PROVING that he committed arson -- not that Willingham could have been found guilty even if he did not actually commit arson.  Jackson thinks that there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict Willingham without proof of arson.  However, the New Yorker article does a thorough job of poking holes in all of the circumstantial evidence.  Terence7 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Please re-read my above posting. I did  not  say that "Willingham can ...".  I said that, generically, someone / anyone can (e.g., in any given capital case).  In this specific case ... the point remains that even if there were no arson evidence whatsoever (much less, questionable or even refuted evidence) ... there would still be enough for a capital conviction.  Or, so says Jackson.  I stand by my original statement.  You have mis-quoted me.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 9 September 2009)

 * I think we're essentially in agreement -- I'm just taking issue with your statement that "someone can be guilty of a capital murder, without committing an arson." Well, no.  (I assume you are referring to cases such as Willingham's, in which fire was the cause of death, since your statement is obvious and trivial in other circumstances such as death by shooting, etc.)  If someone in a case such as Willingham's is found guilty of capital murder, that means the jury has found that there is enough evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed an act of arson.  If there was no arson (i.e., if it was an accident), then there was no murder; therefore if there was a murder, there was arson.  It is implicit in the murder verdict that an act of arson was committed -- whether or not the accused was convicted of a specific count of arson, and regardless of whether the evidence of arson presented was specific or circumstantial. Terence7 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conceding that the 1991 investigation was "undeniably flawed" by 2009 standards does not equate to "Willingham was innocent". That is not a fact, it is an argument made by Gann, the Innocence Project, and others. A formal finding of Willingham's actual innocence would come about from a review of all the trial evidence and testimony and would include determining the actual cause for the fire which killed the girls. patsw (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro, 9 September 2009)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.26.82 (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

how about add this photo to the article
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2009-08/48850408.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

if there is no arson then this could not be murder
this is not rocket science. if there was no arson, how could willingham have killed them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

 * An investigation, trial, and appeals were all conducted and he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The purpose of this Wikipedia article is different from the purpose of the Innocence Project and reviewers of the arson evidence.  Their purpose is to publicize what they to believe mistakes made starting with the initial investigation of the fire through Willingham's execution.  The article's purpose is to present, in summary, the findings of the court, the case made by the prosecution, and the case made by the defense -- and since the execution, summarize the alleged errors in the arson evidence, rebuttals, etc.  Arguments are left to others.  Editors here summarize. patsw (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this is well worth reading first hand

 * Analysis of the Fire Investigation Methods and Procedures Used in the Criminal Arson Case Against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameran Todd Willingham - Craig L. Beyler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The New Yorker article is only half of the story; the Beyler report linked to above that coincided with its release should get more mention in the article. It was an independent study commissioned by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, a state agency formed by the legislature to investigate professional negligence and misconduct in criminal cases, in response to a formal complaint filed by the Innocence Project based on the two previous arson investgations. Pravnik (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"An independent review that claims the arson investigation that led to the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham was flawed will be presented to a state panel Oct. 2 in Dallas.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission will hold its next quarterly meeting at 9:30 a.m. Oct. 2 at the Omni Mandalay Hotel at Las Colinas. On the agenda is a review and discussion of the report on the investigation into the Willingham case." Read more about it here: http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/local_story_252171810.html?keyword=topstory I'm trying to see if the public can attend this event, I plan to do so.  Yeah and I don't need lecutures about original research.  :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That meeting is in fact open to the public. Here is the agenda http://www.fsc.state.tx.us/documents/D_100209MeetingAgenda.pdf I plan on being there! She said they normally finish about 2pm but they think this meeting will likely go until 5pm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Science Magazine interviews outside fire investigator re: Willingham
"In February, a landmark report by the National Research Council (NRC) in February criticized nearly every aspect of the nation's forensics science system, including unreliable techniques for analyzing hair and DNA samples—a problem the U.S. Senate has been addressing in recent hearings.

But the NRC report said almost nothing about arson. So ScienceInsider conducted an email interview with John Lentini (left), a nationally known fire investigator who conducted an outside review of the controversial case of Todd Willingham, a convicted arsonist who was executed in 2004. Tomorrow, we will run an interview with Jay Siegel, a scientist who served on the NRC panel." Forensic Science on Trial: The First of Two ScienceInsider Interviews This is a brief yet good read.

Tex Governor Rick Perry defends himself
Is it me or is rick perry an evil man? http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-perry_19tex.ART.State.Edition2.4bf3d78.html

It's entirely you. Well, you and the rest of the left that has founbd an item to seed the 'net with in preparation for the 2012 election and their excuse making for their current disgrace.FMChimera (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So putting an innocent man to death is ok then? --130.108.169.41 (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Texas Gov. obstructing justice in the Willingham case?
More from the Dallas Morning News (linked below).

I wonder of the governor's motives in sweeping "three appointees from their jobs just two days before they were set to critically examine a flawed arson investigation that contributed to the execution of a Corsicana man" ibid. I wonder of the governor's agenda for the coming years and how a definitive conclusion that his state, the state of Texas, executed a demonstrably innocent person might affect that agenda and the governor's standing with his constituents.

Will sovereign immunity shield the governor, legislature and courts of Texas from civil and criminal action should the alleged evidence that a demonstrably innocent person was executed by the state of Texas ever be reviewed by an independent authority? Where does bloodlush lay on the scales of justice?

By any reasonable measure, assuming it was not riddled with falsehoods, the New Yorker article recounting the tale of woe of Cameron Todd Willingham seems quite convincing. If a wrong can be righted, it should be.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100109dntexperryarson.1cf2d2edb.htmlGwopy (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Perry did this because he has an election coming up. By doing this THE DAY BEFORE THE COMMISSION WAS TO MEET he hopes it will go away until after the election.  after that he won't care if the entire world knows he signed off on an innocent man being executed.  and his followers aren't the type to shed a tear for innocent people being executed.  I mean read Perry's public comments on the matter, he could care less about investigations and science and forensics.  Killing perceived criminals carries a lot of currency in the state of texas.  I have been here for 40 years.  this is a blood thirsty state run by right wing religious whack jobs who think the world is 6,000 years old and want to see the bible taught in science class.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ACTUALLY what we have here is the left setting up a hit job in advance for a potential Republican Presidential candidate. Willingham was a felon, an abuser and a whackjob. That some "experts" who never had an opportunity to view the sight, evidence or interview the killer have made unsupportable claims is a disgrace. At least when those claims get cited as fact by bigotted hate-mongers such as yourself. Fortunately, and humorously, despite the bias exhibited in the Wiki article thx to people like you the "issue" isn't gaining any traction at all. Most people don't care and of those that do, most don't buy it. Frankly I'd rewrite the entire thing into something that resembled reality but there's too many nuts on Wiki for facts to last long. But HERE, in the discussion, it'll last so that's at least something. As regards how long you have lived there and your opinion of the place; pack your bags and move. I'm certain there are various socialist European Third World nations that would just love to have you. FMChimera (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 * A note to those involved in this conversation- please do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee, aren't you cute. Save your comments for the location of the discussion in the future and don't clutter up my page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FMChimera (talk • contribs) 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * {I did not realize how old this argument was}(1) This page does not belong to you and what you feel is clutter and what substantially relates to the Willingham article is irrelevant. (2) You just attacked someone for politely telling you not to attack other Wikipedia contributors. (3) You have a pattern of attacking people when you are unable to provide facts, or coherent reasoning to validate your opinions. Personal attacks diminish the quality of this site and encourage people who actually have something to to contribute to leave. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 09:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

To FMChimera: Willingham is proven innocent. You will be very, very sorry for bashing a dead person who was already the most miserable man ever lived. Also if you think your so-called "facts" can't stand in wikipedia, then it's clearly not the place for you.

Poor Sourcing of this Article
I find myself wondering why no one has posted or made publicly available the key legal documents related to the Willingham case. Specifically, where are the links to the various appeals court decisions in his case? For that matter, why has no one posted at least some of the trial transcript online as well? This has been done before: the widow of Daniel Faulkner has posted the complete transcript of Mumia Abu Jabal on the justicefordanielfaulkner.com page.

I also wonder why the write-up of this article does not include other pertinent facts about Willingham's demeanor the night of the fire. Frankly, if I knew that my children were in a burning house and presumably dead or soon to be dead, I rather doubt that I would be preoccupied by trying to move my car to avoid damage to it. Doing something like that shows both presence of mind and a degree of callousness as well in my book.

Finally, it would seem appropriate to include in the article a section discussing the fact that Willingham's injuries were disproportionate to the ones his kids suffered (i.e. dying). That is frequently a hallmark of someone who stages a murder (for example: Jeffrey MacDonald, the Fatal Vision Killer, escaping an assault that left his pregnant wife and two little children beaten and stabbed to death with minor injuries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.223.248 (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

 * One would have to petition the Texas Criminal Court for release of the documents. Instead of wondering, you could certainly do that. The New Yorker article references court transcripts. Though, as judging from the second paragraph in this post, the author clearly hasn't read or hasn't comprehended the article (e.g. the car wasn't moved to avoid damage). Also, in a fire, injuries are typically disproportionate between groups that escape the fire and those that do not. For example, I had once been to the Federal Building in Oklahoma City but escaped it with disproportionate injuries (i.e. not dying) to those who were killed in the bombing of it. Is this a hallmark of my guilt for the bombing and the framing of another?Gwopy (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I read the article. I didn't see any explanation for why moving the car was not very odd behavior. I'm also struck by the fact that the article is not sourced, so the reader has to essentially take the author's word for all the facts presented in it. I'm also struck by the fact the article left out that Willingham's last words were apparently a curse directed at his ex-wife and an attempt to make an obscene gesture at her, since she and at least on of his defense attorneys came to believe he was guilty. I'm also struck by the fact the article did not mention that Willingham told the police that he had poured cologne on the floor because "the babies like the smell."

As for requesting the trial transcript, I'm not trying to make the argument that someone who was convicted, sentenced, and executed for a triple homicide of three children was wrongly executed for his crime. I remember reading a prominent abolitionist who said that anyone who takes up the cause of a condemned man who claims he or she is innocent has a duty to read the trial transcript, talk to the prosecutor, or speak with the investigators on the case instead of relying on newspaper articles and advocacy groups to form his or her opinions. You can read the piece, by Andrew Hammel, at this link.

http://www.fdp.dk/uk/strategy.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.81.129.193 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You need not "take up" the willingham "cause" to recognize the evidence used to convict him was not only unscientific but absurd. willingham was likely not the kind of guy you would want living next door, but the scientific evidence indicates arson did not cause the fire. if there was no arson then there was no murder. it's pretty simple stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.208 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, so one needs to have decided in advance that this murderer was not the convicted murderer he was to believe these new and unsubstantiated opinion pieces. Leftist "logic" at its finest... FMChimera (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, absolutely NOBODY has contradicted the Beyler review on its merits. So, if that's what you mean by "Leftist 'logic'", then.... - Gwopy 06:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

 * "NOBODY"? Not true.  As Corsicana city officials pointed out, Beyler misquoted people (except for Willingham, whom Beyler seems to have have believed despite the more than two dozen contradictions in his testimony).
 * re "the scientific evidence indicates arson did not cause the fire" this is a popular misconception of what the latest experts said. There is NO repeat NO EXCULPATORY evidence; that is to say, evidence that he DIDN'T start the fire deliberately.  Craig Beyler's report complains that not enough was done to "investigate the possibility that the fire had been set by one of the children or by an intruder."  Beyler, in other words, definitively fails to RULE OUT arson.  Gerald Hurst, for his part, says there is "no evidence of arson" which is not the same thing as saying there is evidence it was NOT arson.  For what it is worth, Hurst has on occasion been quite clearly wrong.  In 2008 he declared that the fire at the Governor's Mansion wasn't arson because "an arsonist will start multiple fires" such that the damage would have looked different, and offered a variety of other analyses that were ultimately shown to be nonsense given that the arsonist, whom according to these "expert" analyses could not have existed, was subsequently caught by surveillance cameras.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Gerald Hurst, for his part, says there is "no evidence of arson" which is not the same thing as saying there is evidence it was NOT arson." By definition, a lack of evidence for arson IS evidence that there was not arson.  So yes, science has proven that Willingham is innocent.  And no, they are not unsourced opinion pieces.174.73.5.74 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't get the idea that those who are of the opinion are part of a "leftist plot" against Perry. Looking at some of the arguments made such as Willingham's behaviour: There have been plenty of cases where people were suspected because their behaviour was not what one might expect. Some of these cases have ended in another person being charged and convicted of the murder. Then there is the case of the jailhouse informant who keeps flip-flopping. Add to that, would the jury have convicted had they heard the new evidence?

But looking at other cases, there have been over 500 Exonerations obtained by the Innocence Project including 21 on death row. Much of this has been due to DNA testing that was not done or could not be done at the time. It is interesting to note that in many of these cases, the state refused to allow testing and did it's best to withhold such evidence in appellate court. I am sure that there are many who will have concluded that if a suspect refuses to provide his DNA voluntarily, he is probably guilty. Does anyone consider that if the state withholds DNA evidence, it may be because the state might be worried that he may be innocent? Why would the state, if it is so certain of a suspects guilt, refuse to allow testing that would validate it's verdict? BTW, it's worth mentioning in about a quarter of those exonerations, convictions were based on confessions that were often obtained by dubious methods. But I don't suppose those on the right are as concerned with that as the leftists.

But I digress. The idea that those who campaign for exonerations are "leftists" may have some merit. But what does that say about those on the right, who dislike the work that the Innocence Project does? What it doesn't say, is that those on the right value justice as much as those on the left. But just in case this might really be a leftist plot against Perry, that does not mean the posthumous evidence is itself invalid2A02:8084:26E0:AA00:5D96:6D8F:774C:2E02 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Added in City of Corsicana Response to Beyler Report
The City of Corsicana released a 21 page document that amounts to a rebuttal of the Beyler report. I have added a section summarizing its main points and provided a link to it as well. It's going to be very interesting to me to see if it gets "wished" away by some of the people here who are pretty much Willingham advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.199.217 (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 * With a reported nine fire investigation reports on record, why is there an entire section for a response to a single report? As the Beyler report is not summarized in the article, why is the response from the city afforded such a summary? Without of a summarization of the Beyler report, the response does little more than note that the city disputes the findings, which could be stated with a single sentence. --Crusher1 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. The editor who added it seems to be coming from this article at a partisan angle; I'm certain he's acting in good faith, but it's best to remember that this is an encylcopedia, not a blog of current events. I concur, Crusher, we should perhaps slim that entry down. There has been a back and forth- for instance, the New Yorker posted a rebuttal to the city's report. Perhaps that should be included as well. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

more from texas gov perry's office
perry refuses to release the letter sent from attorney who initially pointed out the bad arson evidence to hault the willingham execution: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9B92QUO0.html

perry tried to pressure the forensics committee: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-arson-williinghamoct12,0,7089579.story

perry sure seems intent on covering up his role in the execution of willingamn. he ridiculed the "so-called expert" in public which is funny because beyler is a nationally recognized arson expert and not some hick from corsicana. beyler is THE leading arson expert in the country and his credentials are over the top impressive. perry's aids complained about the cost of having beyler review the arson evidence. obviously perry wants this to blow over until after the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Is Perry only interested in justice once he's been reelected? Perry has not sought to discredit the expert testimony, that his government commissioned, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. So, does he have some evidence that would discredit the Beyler review or is he simply interested in deflecting assertions that he is obstructing an effort to realize the true facts until he's been reelected? Such a person would be an immeasurable coward. - Gwopy 05:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

this CNN video found here puts it into perspective: http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/9415/cnns-anderson-cooper-texas-governor-rick-perry-covering-up-innocent-mans-execution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Early life
There's very little about the man's actual life here. The article should cover his upbringing, his prior convictions, and so forth as well. -LtNOWIS (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are almost no facts on Willingham's life other than those related to the death penalty case. A quick review of the page history revealed little on the subject. The following is a quote from the New Yorker article on Willingham:
 * Born in Ardmore, Oklahoma, in 1968, he had been abandoned by his mother when he was a baby. His father, Gene, who had divorced his mother, eventually raised him with his stepmother, Eugenia. Gene, a former U.S. marine, worked in a salvage yard, and the family lived in a cramped house; at night, they could hear freight trains rattling past on a nearby track. Willingham... struggled in school, and as a teen-ager began to sniff paint. When he was seventeen, Oklahoma’s Department of Human Services evaluated him, and reported, “He likes ‘girls,’ music, fast cars, sharp trucks, swimming, and hunting, in that order.” Willingham dropped out of high school, and over time was arrested for, among other things, driving under the influence, stealing a bicycle, and shoplifting.
 * Frankly, I don't think much of that information would last long on the main page; some will find it prejudicial while others will deem it accommodating. It is a quandary. --Crusher1 (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Echoing Crusher and the "quandary" element. This is a clear case of BLP1E, except that the "1E" element now has long-reaching potential ramifications and has attracted global interest (it made front page news in Sydney, Australia, for example). It may transpire that this entire article gets removed to an article solely focussed on the trial, execution and ensuing debate, as that is where the actual notability lies. We shall see what consensus comes up with. Manning (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - I guess technically this is a BDP1E. Whatever. Manning (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to cause Miscarriage
Willingham was arrested for beating his wife over the stomach with a telephone in an attempt to cause a miscarriage while she was pregnant with two of the dead children in this case. It shows what could be a pattern of behavior and should be added to the section detailing his prior abuse of his wife. http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/willingham899.htm -smb2a (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

yes this is what the clark prosecutor claims and wants you to believe. keep in mind willingham's wife denied this and i think her testimony is a little more reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember reading anywhere that he was arrested on that matter. These claims sufaced during the trial if i remember correctly. --Dwarfpower (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Ok, srsly... She was married to the guy, and didn't leave him after this alleged incident. So, let's say it's false... Surely that makes sense. But if it's true, doesn't that also make sense? She didn't leave him. Disregarding any possible incentive to lie to protect someone you care about, battered women do have a tendency to act in somewhat irrational ways. You can't possibly expect a jury to believe that he didn't beat her rather than to believe that they should protect her since she apparently cannot protect herself. -.- J.M. Archer (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Abused women often rationalize staying with the abuser. Economic, emotional, social pressures, etc. See pimps beating prostitutes who then go right back to get beaten more. Not unusual behaviour. Let's keep original research and musings out of this and just use the facts as claimed in authoritative sources.Pär Larsson (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Not relevant in my opinion. Clearly the evidence from Hurst has exonerated him of any wrong doing in the arson case and thus there is no motive because there is no crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.109.138.40 (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible page move
This man himself is not actually notable and there is scant information about him unrelated to the trial and consequences.

However his trial, execution and ensuing public debate clearly ARE notable. Perhaps a move to a new article named Cameron Willingham execution controversy (or similar) would be more appropriate? That would also remove the requirement to try and present this article as a "biography" article when it really isn't. Manning (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Very few notable people are notable aside from books or songs they wrote, movies they starred in, sports games they played or political offices they got elected to. Willingham was notable because of a very questionable death penalty decision, but that is notable enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I somewhat sympathize with the idea that the person CTW is less notable than the controversy, but when people look for this they google the name CTW, not "texas execution controversy" or some such. The guy is post-humuously famous for being one of very few arguably proven-innocent people executed in North America in modern era. People's idea of "proof" may vary, ofc. Pär Larsson (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

John Jackson is described as a prosecutor in the case and as a judge in the case
Are there two John Jacksons? Thanks, Rich Peterson69.181.160.248 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is only one John Jackson who served as the lead prosecutor in the case but is now a judge for the 13th Judicial District of Texas.--TL36 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Used" becomes "based on", and other subtle shifts in meaning
Prior text: On July 23, 2010, the Texas Forensic Science Commission announced their tentative findings saying that the conviction was based on "flawed science" and that there is no indication that the arson authorities were negligent or committed willful misconduct. Current text: A four-person panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission investigating evidence of arson presented in the case acknowledged on July 23, 2010, that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" in determining the blaze had been deliberately set. It also found insufficient evidence to prove that state Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez and Corsicana Assistant Fire Chief Douglas Fogg were negligent or guilty of misconduct in their arson work.

 * I'm sorry, I don't see how your second example is prejudiced, biased, presumptuous or unfair language. Seems more informative and descriptive, if anything. The language should ideally stay as close as possible to what was written in the official text and in authoritative news reports imho.Pär Larsson (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see how your second example is prejudiced, biased, presumptuous or unfair language. Seems more informative and descriptive, if anything. The language should ideally stay as close as possible to what was written in the official text and in authoritative news reports imho.Pär Larsson (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What caused the trailer fire?
I have read the entire article on Todd Wittingham and I do not see any expert giving an explanation for the fire, except arson. Accidental fires are caused by things like lightning, lit cigarettes, electrical shorts in wiring, appliances over-heating, kids playing with matches, creosote in a chimney, motors burning up in furnaces or other devices, food left cooking on a stove, etc. I think the article is incomplete if there is no statement by a forensic expert on an accidental cause for the fire that killed the 3 girls. Did they or didn't they find an accidental cause? 75.218.73.7 (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the New Yorker article: "Without having visited the fire scene, Hurst says, it was impossible to pinpoint the cause of the blaze. But, based on the evidence, he had little doubt that it was an accidental fire—one caused most likely by the space heater or faulty electrical wiring." 70.69.235.4 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Having read the trial transcript and the statements, those possibilities for the cause of the fire in the building (rather than a trailer) are ruled out by the original investigator Vasquez on what seem to be fairly solid grounds- ones as I remember not connected to the theories that Hurst disputed in his commentary on the case. Electrical wiring was specifically ruled out, and on-scene investigators established that the gas powered space heaters were off at the time of the fire (taps closed) and their damages suggested they were consumed by the fire rather than its initiator. It is worth noting that Hurst, by his own admission, had time only for a fairly cursory meta-investigation, whereas Vasquez' investigation was done on scene at the time. Furthermore, none of Hurst's evidence is specifically exculpatory- while it does raise doubts about the arson investigation, that was only part of a totality of circumstance and behaviour that led to Willingham's conviction. Furthermore, Willingham volunteered the alarming statement, prior to formal accusation, that he poured cologne over the floor in the areas suggested as places where accelerants were spread "because the children liked the smell". He said this first to the fire marshal when they were on scene and repeated it in his sworn statements. He offers these half-explanations throughout- squirrels eating wires, but maybe not, kids touching the gas heater, but maybe not, cologne poured on the floor, so that's what you'll find there etcetera. I went in to the reading convinced of Willingham's innocence, but reading through the statements and transcripts a fairly solid case emerges for Willingham's guilt. The article misses NPOV a couple of times, most egregiously where the New Yorker investigation is said to "demonstrate" Willingham's innocence. It does no such thing- the investigation has not been rigorously examined, and so at best can be said to suggest innocence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.46.239 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Children's insurance policy as motive
TV news reports from the beginning of the case suggested prosecutors believed the children were murdered for life insurance money, despite the fact that no such insurance policies existed.

However, I see no mention of that in this article.--Skintigh (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Got a reference or a link so interested people can check it out and include it in the article? Pär Larsson (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

 * It's been reported that the children were insured for $15000 with Stacy's grandfather the primary beneficiary.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture
I've removed this section, is there any objection to that? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Focused overmuch on Hurst, Beyler theories?
While there's an understandable amount of space given to the theories of Hurst and Beyler, being as the main notability of this case is that there was some dispute, very little space is given to the rebuttals from Corsicana- they are mentioned in passing only, despite addressing the main issues that Beyler brought up.

http://corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles/x46870673/-09-06-09-No-doubts

supports the verdict, and gives some context to Willingham's purported bad character beyond the words of Dr. Grigson, a man the article goes out of its way to present negatively. There seems little balance in the article between the defence and prosecution cases, whereas in the court transcripts and statements people mention Willingham's evasiveness and the issues they had with his story, along with potential motivation. The accelerant findings are strange in light of Willingham's admission to have poured ethanol-based cologne over the floor of the burnt house, which I think at least is a fairly important detail where fire investigation is concerned.

A PDF here, on the fire evidence: http://static.cnhi.zope.net/corsicanadailysun/images/City_of_Corsicana_response.pdf

His defence lawyer gives the reasons why he believes in Willingham's guilt, as found on Huffpo, via AP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/cameron-todd-willingham-j_n_376580.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.46.239 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted Reference to a Documentary
I deleted this:

''A 2011 documentary film, Incendiary: The Willingham Case, mixed stylized explorations of fire science with cinema verité coverage of efforts to review Willingham’s case – by the Texas Forensic Science Commission and within the Texas court system.[5] The film brought renewed attention to Willingham's case in theatrical release. [6]''

1) Because I just HATE the whole prose.  HATE it.  "mixed stylized explorations" and "cinema verite".  Please.  This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip column or a swishy academic textbook on film-making.  I just HATE it.  HATE it. 2)  The article is about an execution, a murderer and a murder. Not a film about an execution, a murderer and a murder. The existence of that little factoid about the film should be buried deep at the bottom of the article until the collective realizes is a meaningless bullet on a list of other irrelevant things, all of which could be thrown out and not harm the article one bit. Nor would they be missed. 3) Did I mention how badly I absolutely HATE that sentence?  "cinema verite", PLEASE.  Wiki should have a list of two-word combinations that should NEVER appear in any wiki article, ever, and those two words should be at the top of that list, and in BOLD.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Troubled by "Documentary Film"
I'm troubled by both the presentation and the content of the "Documentary Film" section. I have no issue with mentioning it, in fact I wish there was a section exploring the various mediums that have focused attention on Willingham's case. However this section does not IMO strike the right tone for this type of article. It reads as an advertisement to be honest. Does anyone have an opinion on how it reads, and how it could be rewritten or re incorporated into the article without requiring it's own section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B000:8D2E:D0F8:B4DD:62D6:B676 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for feedback on this until the 20th, upon which if none is received I will delete the section and integrate a short digest elsewhere. Neal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B014:9875:424:3DFD:7C59:A68C (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Per my comment a year ago and the previous comment, I am again paring down this section. Feel free to integrate it elsewhere if there is consensus but as it stands it's too flamboyant and self promoting in tone for this article.

PottedGold (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree. The documentary has its own WP entry where more details can be shared. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New article
Here is a very in-depth article: The Prosecutor and the Snitch: Did Texas execute an innocent man? published on August 4, 2014. It calls into question the validity of Willigham's conviction, and it details the possibility that an innocent man was indeed executed in this case. This account was reported and written by Maurice Possley for The Marshall Project, and published in conjunction with The Washington Post. Perhaps it contains useful information to include in Cameron Todd Willingham's Wikipedia article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi! I just had a question. At the end of the first paragraph under Gerald Hurst, there is this sentence: The glass was dispelled by a 50-home investigation in San Francisco. Maybe it's me, but... what the heck does that mean? Thanks. Ronaldomundo (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe this should be referring to the notion that crazed glass indicated arson. A long-held fire science belief was that crazing (a special kind of cracking) of a house's glass was only seen in association with arson. It looks like a 1991 investigation of a 50-home fire in Oakland (finding crazed glass in 12 of 50 homes, despite a known accidental origin) disproved the crazed glass/arson link. Here is an article with more info. Death penalty articles stress me out, but I may take a look and see if I can clarify the language. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Cameron Todd Willingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828010833/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/AMR51/182/2004/en/dom-AMR511822004en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/182/2004/en/dom-AMR511822004en.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/opinion/local_story_241210447.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Cameron Todd Willingham. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090828010833/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/AMR51/182/2004/en/dom-AMR511822004en.html to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/182/2004/en/dom-AMR511822004en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Cameron Todd Willingham. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928040823/http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Transcript/Willinghamv12.pdf to http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Transcript/Willinghamv12.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928040758/http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Transcript/Willinghamv11.pdf to http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Transcript/Willinghamv11.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120803001838/http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Tune_in_Tonight_Scheck_on_The_Good_Wife.php to http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Tune_in_Tonight_Scheck_on_The_Good_Wife.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cameron Todd Willingham. 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 tag to http://vipthailottery.com/category/thai-lottery-result/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307034749/http://ccadp.org/DrDeath.htm to http://www.ccadp.org/DrDeath.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612050641/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/wilinham.jpg to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/wilinham.jpg
 * Added tag to https://www.statelotterysambad.in/nagaland-lottery-result/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612050641/http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/wilinham.jpg to http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/wilinham.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502193008/http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=373&PHPSESSID=e9e284391813cdf3d42895341aa9a096 to http://static.cnhi.zope.net/corsicanadailysun/images/City_of_Corsicana_response.pdf
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100428051916/http://corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles to http://www.corsicanadailysun.com/thewillinghamfiles
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090517062914/http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=373&PHPSESSID=e9e284391813cdf3d42895341aa9a096 to http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=373&PHPSESSID=e9e284391813cdf3d42895341aa9a096
 * Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130905125431/http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cameron_Todd_Willingham_Wrongfully_Convicted_and_Executed_in_Texas.php to http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cameron_Todd_Willingham_Wrongfully_Convicted_and_Executed_in_Texas.php

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cameron Todd Willingham. 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/20100208111249/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390 to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101024011120/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-06/justice/texas.execution.probe_1_cameron-todd-willingham-eugenia-willingham-stacy-kuykendall?_s=PM%3ACRIME to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-06/justice/texas.execution.probe_1_cameron-todd-willingham-eugenia-willingham-stacy-kuykendall?_s=PM%3ACRIME
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100208111249/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390 to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=10401390

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cameron Todd Willingham. 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/20110928040758/http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Transcript/Willinghamv11.pdf to http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Willingham_Transcript/Willinghamv11.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

should we change the subheading 'American Murderer' to something more neutral?
Given that a lot of the evidence used to convict him is now considered to be dubious should we replace it with 'American convicted for murder' or something similar? Infospazm (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cameron Todd Willingham


text: User talk:130.101.127.200

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:130.101.127.200


text: Talk:Stychomythia

title: Talk:Stychomythia


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quel

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. — Xezbeth 12:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Quel
Quel is a junior at a high school. Vanity page.
 * Delete. - Stoph 00:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Vanity --Durin 00:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. He likes Eminem and Michael Jackson?  Vanity, thy name is Quel.  Delete. - Lucky 6.9 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Quelete. <Butt-head>Huh huh, he said gamecock.</Butt-head> Vanity of the highest order. android↔talk 02:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, even though this guy is "mutli-talented."-LtNOWIS 02:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, it turns out he is a junior at college. - Stoph 03:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal homepage article. -Husnock 04:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 05:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, vanity. Mo0 [ talk ] 06:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, lame, sad, and stupid. Linuxbeak 14:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Vanity. - Longhair | Talk 11:32, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Quelcruft. -- 8^D gab 20:46, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)
 * Deleted! BlackberryLaw 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)BlackberryLaw
 * Comment. The page has not actually been deleted yet. - Stoph 03:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quel


text:
Talk:Start a War

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Start a War. 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/20070930210241/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=324 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=324

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Start a War


text:
Tandia

Tandia is Bryce Courtenay's 1991 sequel to his own best-selling novel The Power of One. It follows the story of a young woman, Tandia, who was brutally raped and then banished from her own home. Tandia later meets up with Peekay, the protagonist from The Power of One and their stories continue on together.

Plot introduction
In South Africa, during a time when apartheid was at its worst, Courtenay tells a story of how oppressed people worked together with those who sought justice against the inhumane dictators of the country and those who supported it. There are also storylines and themes involving boxing, which was predominant in Courtenay's earlier novel, The Power Of One.

Plot summary
Tandia, whose parents were a South African Indian man (Mr. Patel) and his house worker (a black woman), is raped by a police officer at her father's grave the day after his funeral. With Mr. Patel's death, Tandia knew things were going to be very hard for her. But after his wife (Mrs. Patel) kicks her out of the dark corrugated-iron shed in the back yard, her only house, her situation has been changed more drastically than she expected. She is arrested by the police and meets the policeman who witnessed the rape on her father's grave and becomes her lifelong enemy, Jannie Geldenhuis.

Tandia finds a home in the brothel where Geldenhuis drops her. The brothel's owner and the other residents adopt her and she learns a lot of life lessons. Some of the clients of the brothel end up becoming her sponsors for her ambition to enter law school.

While Peekay and Hymie (Morrie in the American version) go to Britain to read law at Oxford University, they want to conquer the world boxing field, Peekay as world welterweight champion and Hymie as Peekay's manager. They also want to pursue justice for the country they love, South Africa. When they arrive back in South Africa, their rivalry with Jannie Geldenhuis, which began in the school where they first met, extends to both boxing and politics.

Tandia grows up to be an intelligent and very beautiful lawyer. She joins the law firm formed by Peekay and Hymie and is dedicated to providing counsel to the under-represented black and coloured population of South Africa. Her defense of a black terrorist causes her to again confront her lifelong enemy Jannie Geldenhuis who is now a powerful officer in the police force.

Tandia and Peekay develop a romantic relationship, in a country where mixed relationships are outlawed. Their growing love is very dangerous and it leads them into the most fearful consequences.

title: Tandia


text:
Talk:Robert Todd Carroll

Misc
I cleaned it up a bit. But do we have any evidence to suggest that the Skeptic's Dictionary began with exactly 50 articles? Zensufi 00:14, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

importance
I think this article is important. Go to "what links here" and you will find quite a few articles that link to this one. Bubba73 (talk), 23:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I have removed the importance tag added without explanation by User:24.55.47.135. The article already asserts the important of Carroll, specifically that he is a published author and has a well-known, well-visited website on skepticism. This gives lie to the claim that it "lacks information on the importance of the subject matter". On the other hand, it could use more material and better sourcing. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * while I agree that the subject is notable enough for an article. The article itself needs work, and references to something other than the subjects work.  --Rocksanddirt 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)  In fact the Afd for this article back in feb had a number of good refs. that don't seem to be included.....?  --Rocksanddirt 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
This article reads like something you'd see on his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.250.226 (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, this is lacking third-party sources that are more than interviews with the author. Most sources appear to be self-promotion. Does not even describe what "skeptics societies" are about or why we should care.--Parkwells (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It's difficult to understand what the complaint is. If you don't know what "skeptics societies" means, then you wont be able to understand what the article is about. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Carroll's views have attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media[citation needed]
I'm not sure that the statement that currently says "Carroll's views have attracted numerous interviews for him from mainstream media" is correct. I did find one article from the New York Times which has several quotes from him but one article does not constitute "numerous". If other people can't find more cites, we should probably rephrase the sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Longtime advocate of atheism", Cat:Atheist philosophers, Cat:American atheists
Is Carroll an atheist? I can't find anything about either advocacy of atheism or personal belief in it in his autobiographical sketch or the atheism page at http://www.skepdic.com/. Indeed, the skepdic.com atheist page sounds, to me, more as if he would not describe himself as an atheist. I haven't had time to research his writings in depth, but I suggest that is up to the editors who want these claims in the article, rather than to me. Meanwhile, since this falls under the WP:BLP policy, I have removed his supposed advocacy of atheism, and the categories "Atheist philosophers" and "American atheists". Feel free to reinsert these things if you can provide a reference to a reliable source. But please note that "atheist" categories are reserved for people "for whom their atheism was or is a defining characteristic or related to their notability and who have self-identified as atheists". (Similar limitations apply to other religious categories.) Bishonen | talk 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC).
 * P.S. I've found a modest reference for Carroll being personally an atheist (at least in 1996) in the Skeptic's Dictionary article, namely this "personal profile" from Who's Who Online, 1996. It's obviously not sufficient for the things I've removed, though: no "advocacy", no relation to his notability. Bishonen | talk 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

Updating the Page
I'll be working on updating this page during the next few weeks. Please contact me here if you want to collaborate or if you have any relevant information. Mostafa.kmahmoud (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've finished expanding this page, also removed the flagged external links section after using the notable links as citations Mostafa.kmahmoud (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 * I appreciate all the hard work you have done, my only tiny complaint, is that this website is not a reliable source, it is a fringe website that is anti-Wikipedia hosted by a bunch of paranormal kooks who spend time attacking skeptics and Wikipedia editors. I think that citing this website is only going to bring about problems. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Death
I have very minimal experience editing, but I thought I should pass this along for someone who does. I found it in today's paper.

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sacbee/obituary.aspx?n=robert-todd-carroll&pid=181699431 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookrede (talk • contribs) 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
The criticism section only appears to be apologetics of fringe theorists, making me wonder if it's not undue... (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Paleo  Neonate  – 22:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:PaleoNeonate: Seems like it. Barron seems to be nobody special, and I deleted his section. I guess any of the people Carroll wrote about could have such a section here, but if we do have those, they should at least be restricted to crackpots with Wikipedia pages. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, here was the state at the time I wrote the above in 2017. — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Self-sourcing in this article
One way or another, the source cited for most of the material in this article is Robert Todd Carroll. So work is needed to bring the article into line with the content guideline WP:SELFSOURCE. "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." --Cordially, --O Govinda (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Lede
Replacing "best known for his website The Skeptic's Dictionary," we've restored to to the lede that Carroll was "best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism; he achieved notability by publishing The Skeptic's Dictionary online in 1994."

This is a relatively small issue. But:

 * 1) The restored material seems needless, a bit wordy, perhaps crossing the border into puffery. Our point here is to briefly inform the reader of Carroll's achievements, not "establish his notability," as one might in an internal Wikipedia discussion about whether to keep the article (which I agree we should).
 * 2) As far as I can tell, the restored material lacks support from an RS.
 * 3) I'm aware of fields like marine biology, particle physics, literary criticism, and so on. I'm not aware of a recognized academic field called "skepticism." I haven't seen any university Departments of Skepticism or heard of any degrees awarded in the field. It seems to me that skepticism is more like an approach, an attitude, that an intelligent person brings to consideration of claims and supposed evidence. A marine biologist, a particle physicist, a literary critic, an atheist, a theologian could all be skeptical. So I'm skeptical of the claim that Carroll was "best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism." That he's "best known for his website" would seem objectively verifiable by a modest bit of OR (though I'd like to see such a statement sourced). For more than that, I'm doubtful.
 * 4) It seems to me the article does little to demonstrate his contributions to skepticism apart from his website, for which the trimmer lede recorded he is noted.
 * 5) The restored date when Skepdic.com went online is surely not notable. Carroll is known for his website, not for publishing it in such-and-such year.

I think my revised lede -- more concise, better grounded in objective fact -- did more honor to Carroll than the previous one, now restored.

Shall we revert?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting a discussion.
 * What do the best quality references actually say? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Hipal/Ronz.
 * The Guardian only mentions The Skeptic's Dictionary (unsurprisingly, because the Guardian item is a review of that work).

 * The CFI ref, noting Carroll's election as a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, highlights The Skeptic's Dictionary and makes a one-word mention of the Skeptimedia blog, but doesn't mention more "contributions to the field of skepticism" than that.

 * The Sacramento Bee does say, "Bob" (yes, Bob) "is best known for his contributions in the field of skepticism." But apart from The Skeptic's Dictionary and "giving lectures," it doesn't say what those contributions might be.

 * I would normally think of the Bee, a newspaper, as a high-quality source. But the article, an obit, doesn't seem to have the same quality as a news article. I have nothing against obits. But this one reads more like a eulogy. (Sample: "Loved for his strong but gentle manner, his quick wit, his integrity, his storytelling, and his songwriting, he will be remembered and greatly missed. . .")

 * Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised at how poor the sources seem poor overall. If there are no better sources to be found, I think a complete rewrite is in order. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 * Yes. (Meanwhile: Shall we revert the lede?)
 * Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Views on Religion" section

 * The "Views on Religion" section is entirely unsourced or self-sourced.
 * As far as I know, Carroll is not celebrated for having made new or profound contributions to religious or anti-religious thought.

If Carroll had views about religion that deserve a place in an encyclopedia, we should find them discussed by reliable secondary sources. Unless someone has reliable sources to bring forward, the section seems to deserve to be dropped. (And if someone wants to re-add it later with reliable sources, great.)

No?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"Jon Barron" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Barron&redirect=no Jon Barron] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. --Finngall talk 16:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

undue weight of Rupert Sheldrake's opinion
''Sheldrake replied to Carroll's criticism by defending his own arguments and accusing Carroll of committing several logical fallacies, including using false dilemmas and misrepresenting Sheldrake's position. He criticized the Skeptic's Dictionary itself, writing that it would not survive had it been subject to independent peer reviews.[31]'' -- So what? The fact that the subject of this article was critical of Sheldrake's claims doesn't lend any extra weight to Sheldrake's unsupported unreasoned claims about SkepDic. -- 2600:8802:5913:1700:704D:330:4089:6908 (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robert Todd Carroll