Talk:Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus

Notability

IMO, this is a case of WP:SINGLEEVENT notability, and does not adhere general notability. More references needed to establish notability of incident and/or person.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Many more references exists and will be added as I work on the article. Others' help also appreciated. Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The investigation of his story won the Pulitzer Prize, implies that the book/report about the investigation may be notable, not the individual or the incident. There are many non-fiction books which win prestigious awards, that does not imply that their central characters are notable but it implies the book is notable. This is my personal opinion. Let us wait for a third party view. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Steve Titus article is more notable than the book or reporter. If people want to know the story, they will search for "Steve Titus" rather than an obscure book name or newspaper reporter. If things are merged, they should be merged to here. In contrast, for many famous and well known books, the author is more notable, for example, Michael Chrichton is notable and his Five Patients is notable but not each patient. However, this is a different situation where the event is more notable.

If someone wants to rename the article "The Framing of Steve Titus" or "Wrongful imprisonment of Steve Titus", that is fine with me except it may be considered to be pushing an opinion. Acme Plumbing (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying we need to delete this article, this writing can be used in an article the Pulitzer Prize winning book. Please read WP:SINGLEEVENT: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident." This may apply, I think we need a third party opinion. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the one-event diagnosis. If the event and its aftermath are notable, that should have an article, but the person should not. No need to worry about people searching for the name, it would redirect them to the (only) incident that he is known for.YobMod 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are all saying. I would not be opposed to renaming the article "Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus". However, Steve Titus or the Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus is the main theme. Few people would look up the name of the book. Anyone support the name Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus or Wrongfully accused rapist of Seattle (1980)? Steve Titus is the easier title to remember. Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I started doing a little clean-up and formating on this. the "Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus" might be a viable option here, but I haven't done enough research yet to say for sure yet. I'll get back to this in the next day or two, and try to clean up a bit more. Cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

3O

Upon request, I'd like to help out with this article. If you folks would be so kind as to allow me a couple days to read through this, the sources, do a little research, and review some of our guidelines - I think there we may be able to spruce this article up a bit. Thanks, and Cheers. — Ched :  ?  08:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack Henderson?

Should this not be a section of an article on the Pulitzer-Prize-winning journo, rather than an article in its own right, given that Titus appears notable for no reason (and is covered in sources for no reason) other than being the basis of the prize-winning story? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Terrible writing

The section "exculpatory evidence" in the current revision (reproduced below) is poorly written and pretty much incomprehensible. It needs to be totally rewritten, or else removed, because right now it simply does not make any sense.

The timeline was an important factor in the case. Titus left his parents home at 6:10 p.m after attending his father's birthday party where there were other guests. He was seen by a waitress at 6:20 p.m. on the day of the rape. The waitress at different times thought she had seen him at 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Titus made a long distance telephone call from his apartment at 7:00 p.m. at the day of the rape. The distance between the rape seen and Titus' apartment is 19 1/2 minutes according to a Seattle Times reporter.

He was a man jailed for rape. Later, he was freed. The police are accused of making up some evidence. The case was re-opened after a reporter showed new evidence and inconsistencies. Titus' story received a Pulitzer Prize in 1982, awarded to Jack Henderson. Titus was jailed and thought of killing himself. Later, Titus got out and sued. Just before the trial, he died. His parents settled and got $2M to be paid over 20 years. The policeman who is accused of making up evidence died 6 years later of a heart attack, just like Titus. Henderson later became a private investigator specializing in finding out innocent people who have been convicted.

Mac Smith later confessed to the rape. He was thought to have committed more than 50 rapes. Titus was fired from his job after the rape and was long term unemployed.

Sentences like "he was a man jailed for rape" (why not just "he was jailed for rape"?) and "the police are accused" (why past tense?) are just poor writing. And the information in these paragraphs is totally incoherent, it jumps around back and forth in time. This is really junk. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. If this article is kept, this needs to be rewritten from scratch. LadyofShalott 04:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This has to be one of the worst written entries in wiki. 76.112.199.81 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the book several times and agree that the article sucks. I will do a rewrite. Oh yeah, he is notable. This was an egregious miscarriage of justice, ranking right up their with Christine Blasey Ford's false accusation Brett Kavanaugh. 47.137.182.8 (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Accuracy

Actually, "Mac Smith" wasn't the actual rapist's real name; it was just a pseudonym created by the author. ("'Mac Smith' as he is called by Mr. Olsen (the author assigning the pseudonym, he writes, 'in the interests of a larger truth'" from the source). Could someone please note this? Cheers, I'^mperator 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I will.

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Atmoz (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Steve Titus → Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus — Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus (2nd nomination), consensus supports a rename. Should the title be Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus, Steve Titus rape case, or Steve Titus rape trial? Cunard (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking a npov, a word like wrongful seems like taking sides. I would prefer it called case over trial to incompasses the events better but both are ok. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename would be appropriate if this would be kept. JBsupreme (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is in this case not about the crime he was accused of, but the person himself and his legal difficulties. It is therefore appropriate to keep it here. I note that the usual concerns about BLP do not apply, since he is deceased; if he were alive, it would be another matter. All the suggestions have a problem "S.C. rape case" normally means a case deaingl with the rape of S.C. "Trial" is incorrect because there the article is about more than the trial. t is, basically, about the person. I see no reason to rename. It is not true that consensus supported a rename. the actual closing was " Any renaming discussions can be held on the article's talk page" . It is within the remit of the closing admin to suggest a rename, but Beetlebrox did not do so--quite correctly, since thee was no real reason to do so. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect DGG, that is flat out and patently false. This is not a biographical article; the person is only known for a false accusation/conviction and nothing more. JBsupreme (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JBsupreme. The entire article is about the circumstances surrounding the crime, the trial, and the exculpation. In fact, the article has only two sections, the first titled "Crime" and the second titled "Exculpatory evidence". Keeping the information at this title misrepresents what the article is about.

Save for yourself, all at the AfD who supported keeping the article were also in support of a rename or considered a rename acceptable (Bongomatic, Blood Red Sandman, Stillwaterising, A Stop at Willoughby, NativeForeigner, and Ash). With their concrete arguments, these seven editors (out of a total of eleven) constitute a sufficient consensus to support a rename.

Your arguments about the inaccuracy of the proposed titles are noted, but I believe that those titles are more accurate than the current one. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It says right in the introduction that Steve Titus was "wrongly convicted of rape", thus I support a renaming of this article to "Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus". JBsupreme (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been invited to comment here. In order to clarify any potential misinterpretation of the opinion expressed at the AfD, I would like to clarify here that I have no view on the matter. ^Bongo_matic 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't support renaming to "Wrongful conviction of...". Not for any POV reason (the man was wrongfully convicted, this is not a matter of opinion), just that the article isn't, by its content, about his wrongful conviction so much as it is about the case and trial. I'd support either Steve Titus Rape Case or Steve Titus Rape Trial.

I also highly suggest a redirect off of the name Steve Titus in order to make the article easier to find, but that's a secondary matter. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I often second-guess myself, so here goes. After re-reading a few times and thinking more on this, "Wrongful conviction" seems to me the way to go. That's the more salient description of the topic. "Rape case" or "Rape trial" miss the reason the particular case is notable. There's nothing POV about referring to this as a wrongful conviction -- that's a matter of record, not opinion, and it's the only reason this became a notable event. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I concur with those supporting a move to Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus; I believe that title would be the most accurate representation of the information covered in the article. "Steve Titus" is a fine redirect, of course. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I concede that the word "wrongful" is appropriate here and legally defined as such. A move with redirect would be fine. - Stillwaterising (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

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