Talk:Eddie Conway

conway gave many-hour video autobiographic interview to paul jay of the real news network

these videos are online and should be consulted. He talks about his childhood, vietnam-war service, the John Hopkins "negro-killing" headsurgeon whose operation-room crimes against african americans radicalized the nurse C and led him to the panthers, etc

Neutrality

This appears to be a completely biased article with a POV bias. It makes declaratory statements without supporting citations and states that Conway is a "political prisoner" without addressing the police officer that was killed (Donald Sager), nor the fact that the attorney that Conway wanted to use was at the time incarcerated - a valid reason to deny the request. Conway was tried and convicted by a jury. His accomplice confessed to police and named Conway as participating. GregJackP (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up

Clean up POV statements, references, sections. Removed COINTELPRO section as it has no direct link to this individual - if specific information connects directly by verifiable and reliable sources, then it can be added back in. Added Controversy and Later Life sections, which still need more work. Need to add more info on the movement to free Conway. GregJackP (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a reference to Conway's autobiography even though it has not yet been released. This is due to the fact that it can be pre-ordered, has a title and an ISBN assigned, and is being carried by major book sellers like Amazon.com. GregJackP (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Law

The Baltimore Sun for 7/17/2011 has an article headed "Prison bans book written by inmate" that talks about Conway and his book Marshall Law -- the life and times of a baltimore black panther. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8463480-marshall-law etc. on the book. Couldn't find a link to the article. Jo3sampl (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Issues still in article

The reason I added the NPOV tag is that I have some NPOV concerns based on missing info and/or misleading in the article that could lead readers to draw conclusions that are unsupported the known facts or that are based on facts that have alternate possible interpretations. Let me outline my main concerns:

There article states "According to Conway, he was working during the time of the shooting and his supervisor at the Post Office affirmed his alibi." but does not address if Conway's alibi was ever properly investigated (before, during, or after his trial) and if so whether it was ever disproved or not. Was his claim of having an alibi was made after his conviction or before and/or during the trial? If either little info is available on whether this alibi was know before the trial or whether it was properly investigated at the time, then we can state so.
When it talks about "Charles Reynolds, a known jailhouse informant" court testimony against Reynolds, it states "One of the points that proved key to the truthfulness of Reynolds was that Reynolds was told by Conway that he had taken Officer Sierakowski's watch, a fact that was not released by the police during the investigation.", but the way this statement is worded is problematic to say the least. First, the claim by Reynolds that Conway told him about taking the watch does not in and of itself prove Conway confessed to Reynolds, even if this detail was held from the public, since it assumes that Reynolds couldn't have known about before being placed in the cell with Conway. The problem is that he could have been told about the watch from someone other than Conway, such as by someone from the police, prosecutors office, or someone acting on either of their behalf, such as a prison employee who was told about this fact from one of the aforementioned sources. Thus, under this scenario, Conway would have been lying on the stand. As such, Wikipedia should not be judging the truthfulness of Reynolds testimony but rather simply pointing out facts used at the time to support his testimony as being truthful.
The article states that "Conway requested that his cellmate, attorney Arthur Turco, be appointed to represent him. Turco requested bail to be able to do so, but both of these requests were denied." but it fails to state why Turco, the Black Panther's lawyer was incarcerated. It should state specifically why Turco was in jail at the time ( implies he was awaiting trial for some sort of charge due to the mention of bail being denied for him). Also the article states that Conway had also requested William Kunstler as an alternative choice for lawyer, which was also denied, but fails to state the reason for this denial. Was Kunstler tied up in other proceedings at the time that prevented him from serving as Conway's lawyer or was there some other reason the judge denied the request?
How was it that "The police determined that these two men, Powell and Ivory Johnson, knew members of the Baltimore Black Panther Party chapter or were affiliated with it."? This info would be useful to the article. Did the police connect the guns found near where they where hiding to them in any way, beyond mere proximity? All relevant details, if available, that should be include in the article. If such info is not readily available then we should make it clear where this info came from without implying whether it factual or not. Something like "According to newspaper reports at the time..." or "according to so and so..." with a followup sentence pointing out that how the police determined this was not stated/specified/describe/etc.
When the article states "Immediately after contact with the two men, Officer Nolan briefly chased a black man on foot and tried to make contact with him. The man then fired several shots at Nolan and escaped.", is this account proven by outside witnesses and/or evidence or was this only Nolan's account of what happened? If it's only the latter, that should be reworded "According to officer Nolan, he briefly chased..." and so forth. if their were other witnesses or evidence backing up the officer's account that should also be included. We need more details so the reader can draw their own conclusion on the veracity of this officer's account, not just have to take it on faith.
The sentence "Based on the affiliation of the two suspects with the Black Panther Party, Nolan was shown two photo line-ups of party members."agains runs into the problem that it does not explain how do the police know these suspects where affiliated with the black panther party? Were they just assuming this to be the case, based on there earlier shooting of the officer? We need to be clear how they came to this conclusion because there have been accusations that the Baltimore police would have had no problems framing the Black Panthers (or the wrong Black Panthers) for these crimes or that they due to their bias against the Black Panthers that they might end up being to myopic in who they considered as possible suspects and that this myopia led them to figure the wrong guy or guys, even if unintentionally.
When the article talks about ballistics test done on two weapons connected to the officer's murder, it leaves out key info. To begin with, when the article talks about one of the weapons found with Powell and Johnson, though does not explain what "found with" means. Does this refer to the weapons found near Powell and Johnson's hiding place? If so, then that should be made clear. It also fails to properly explain how the ballistics test "played a significant role in the trial." something that should be discussed in more detail.
Finely, the article implies that Conway's conviction was controversial and that a significant number of people feel he was framed or at least was not given a fair trial but does never outright states so, which I think it should. This fact that his conviction was and is controversial should be directly mentioned in the lead too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notcharliechaplin (talk • contribs) 23:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]