Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 2

categories by definition violates NPOV

The categories "American Murders" and the americans who have killed police officers categories take as a given the very subject of controversey. Those who support Abu Jamal argue precisely that he is not, in fact, a murderer. Putting him in those categories declares him to be guilty, openly taking one side of a debate in a controversial subject. It's like putting Gay Marriage in Category: Abominations. It violates NPOV.

Mumia ought to be in both those categories. He was convicted of murdering a police officer. The sole criterion for inclusion in those categories should only be whether or not that person was convicted of murder. That is the reason that Mumia is in Category:American murderers, and O.J. Simpson, on the other hand, is not. It is not for Wikipedians to make calls about whether or not someone actually did what a court of law convicted them of. Ford MF 06:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to reiterate my comments above: American murderers ought not be People a majority of wikipedians believe committed murder. Ford MF 06:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your comment Fordmadoxfraud. To say definatively in the OJ Simpson article "Simpson did not kill his wife" would be a violation of NPOV. For the same reason, it is a violation of NPOV to definatively say Abu-Jamal committed murder by putting him in the category. A category for disputed murderers would suit Abu-Jamal just fine. Why should the category be defined by conviction? Does Wikipedia owe allegiance to the United States judiciary? What if two governments differ in their decision about what took place? This is english language wikipedia not Americapedia -- we are supposed to be an independent body. Ahimsa52

"What if two governments differ in their decision about what took place?" Uhh... he was tried in American court, guy. Not French, not British, not Canadian... American. Other governments can disagree all they want, but he was arrested, tried and convicted in the United States. And let me ask you this: of all the convicted murderers in the world, what percent do you think claim they "didn't do it" ?? --Bri 09:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this issue breaks down to a balance between feasibility and theoritical fairness. To have a category called "American Murderers" is stating something about the contents of the category, but what? On the one hand, it seems to be making an absolute claim about the guilt of those listed. Yet what is the alternative? Is there any single person convicted of murder who might not have someone, somewhere claim their innocence? If we are to use the idea of "Majority rules" then you get into questions of which majority, at what time and how does one take a vote? I would humbly suggest that perhaps the simplest way to settle this is perhaps to re-name the category to Americans Convicted of Murder in the interests of total accuracy. Offered as my humble opinion. Zahir13 15:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, Zahir. Categories are supposed to be incredibly uncontroversial and obvious per WP:CAT, since there's no way to comment on an article's placement in a category (the way you can in a list). I'm planning on requesting the change at WP:CFD: getting rid of Category:American murderers, and creating instead Category:Americans accused of murder and Category:Americans convicted of murder. delldot | talk 16:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, after doing further looking around I see that this was already listed for renaming and didn't pass. delldot | talk 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he is a convicted murderer. Therefore, he's an American murderer.

Slagathor 19:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this... if his conviction is ever overturned then it can be moved to a different catagory. As of right now, he is a CONVICTED, AMERICAN Murderer. GuardEMT 20:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So since you guys place the emphasis on his conviction, if someone put OJ Simpson in that category, you would strenuously object, right? And you must be opposed to putting someone like Lee Harvey Oswald in that category, right? After all, he was never convicted.

Commutation of sentence

I just rv'ed the info that his sentence had been commuted to life in prison, largely because I could find no consensus on the secondary news sources (FreeMumia sites, e.g.), and virtually no articles at all in primary news sources that say his sentence was actually commuted. This page here seems more or less credible, in that it says Yohn offered a commutation on the condition that neither Mumia nor the prosecutors appealed. Both appealed, and so the case is now winding its way though the appellate courts. Again. But his sentence has not been commuted. Ford MF 22:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Sentence

Wouldn't it be better to start the article by saying that he is a murderer on death row who is also a jounalist and activist? He probably wouldn't be very famous if he wasn't on death row.

JBFrenchhorn 11:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no. It is more correct to state his profession and primary activities in life, particularly since he has spent substantial time both before and after conviction on these activities. I see your point, but identifying him primarily as a murderer violates neutrality. A killing in self-defense is not murder. And the motive for the killing is the point of controversy, thus the need for neutrality.

"Abu-Jamal's adopted name has caused many to believe that he is a convert to Islam, but he is not. "

This is the only mention of Abu-Jamal's religion in the article, other than the category of American Muslims, and the category of Converts to Islam, which directly contradicts it!

(FWIW, Terry Bisson's book apparently says he was brought up Methodist and converted to Islam at some point after his teens. Can someone with access to the book confirm or deny?) The Wednesday Island 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality review

Not familiar with the subject other than I have seen the graffiti (mentioned in the article). The article seems fairly neutral for a currently living, controversial subject person. From reading the article, It seems that the evidence was strong for conviction, but the trial may not have been handled correctly. And the final point of contention is that he might have to return to death row to appeal for a re-trial, which makes for a dramatic story. I hope that is what was expected to be conveyed. Nice work! Group29 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...It seems that the evidence was strong for conviction, but the trial may not have been handled correctly..." Yeah, it's always horrible when cop killers with overwhelming evidence towards guilty get these horrible trials. He said he had one, I mean, he was a fine man.

I read this page without prior knowledge of the case or the controversy surrounding the topic. I found the main text that purports to be factual as fairly neutral. I feel that the article as a whole has, at the very least, a subtle pro-Mumia POV. I pick up the POV from the later section of the article chronicaling the musical tributes to the subject as well as the prevalence of "Free Mumia" site linked to in the external sites section. The article would feel more balanced if one or two site from each side of the controversy were referenced in the external sites section. Just a suggestion from someone without an ax to grind.

Vandalism

People keep replacing that image of him with a picture of a monkey ([1]). Should we put a hidden comment at the top saying not to do that? Kamope·?·! Sign! 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that will not deter him. It's become quite clear that this is an obsession of some sorts - just look at the Crass article: there is a hidden comment that says not to change the formation date to 1976, yet from time to time someone (using different socks) insists on changing this. Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) probably knows more about this vandal, so the next time you come across this type of vandalism here, please report the vandal account directly to him. Scob e ll302 16:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was altered again. Isn't that sort of vandalism ban-worthy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittynboi (talk • contribs) 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, for future instances like this, I would recommend giving one final warning and then reporting to WP:AIV. delldot talk 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Refs

Currently links to POV sites are being used as references. I don't think these sites, such as mumia.nl and danielfaulkner.com are adequate to use as references (see WP:ATT). In addition to being openly dedicated to pushing a POV, they are not adequately fact checked. We should go through and replace instances where these sites are used as references with more reliable sources or change the wording to reflect that these are statements being made by supporters of one side or the other. delldot talk 18:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in general in this entire article is pretty iffy. Primary sources should resolve all controversies: His religion? What does he say about it in his autobiography? Accounts of what happened? Check court records, not Vanity Fair articles. Further, I suspect most of this is plagarized since the style keeps shifting as if someone cut and pasted from other sources.

Impressed with the POV

Reading through the article now, I am actually pretty impressed with the POV neutrality, I really don't think that either side was taken, and the beauty of Wikipedia is that if you would like to add more to one side, feel free, but reading through the entire article I was very happy with how both sides were presented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.164.216.240 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Biased version of events

I'm not at all an expert on Mumia, but the second paragraph in the section describing the events of December 9th reads as though it was written from the point of view of a Mumia supporter. My understanding is that the actual details of the events in question are very sketchy, but they are presented as factual in the article and appear to be biased toward the "Mumia is innocent" version of what happened. Additionally, the tone of this paragraph is very poor and not in keeping with wiki quality standards. It may be worth deleting the paragraph entirely until someone comes up with something that's both neutral and properly worded.

The following paragraphs also raise neutrality and tone concerns. Consider the simple, seemingly biased sentences found here:

Mumia was kicked out of his own trial for demanding to represent himself which is his right to do so. Prosecution witnesses (who actually changed their stories since and have admitted to saying what the police department threatened them into saying and some of which had charges of their own mysteriously "dropped") were never challenged in court.

I realize this is a sensitive issue with many strong feelings on both sides, but everyone please remember that Wikipedia is NOT the place for your personal feelings on the matter.

Jim keller 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, several forms of biased mischeif have happened to this article since the factual and neutral versions of May 9th and earlier. I was tempted to simply revert to that version but don't have time to sort through the interim changes to see what if anything should be kept. --CliffC 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the changes made since May 9 and reverted to that date, it looks to me nothing of great value will be lost and any musical tributes noted since May 9 can be re-added. --CliffC 02:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Beverly

Shouldn't there be a link to the article on Arnold R. Beverley who claims to have been Faulkner's true assailant? --User:67.71.84.79

I agree, that article has been rewritten as Arnold Beverly but I don't see an obvious place to put a link. --CliffC 05:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Durham in your Mumia Abu-Jamal article

In your article about Mumia Abu-Jamal you state that former hospital security guard Priscilla Durham is deceased. Could you tell me what year she died, where she died, and of what cause?

Small Suggested Edit

"Abu-Jamal's case has received international attention. Many of his supporters claim that he is innocent, that his arrest and conviction were politically motivated, and that he is a political prisoner. Many of his detractors, on the other hand, assert that he had the benefit of due process and has been legitimately convicted of murder."

Remove the words 'supporters' and 'detractors'. They are not necessary for teh logical argument. Besides, I may support Abu-Jamal but still argue or recognize that he has been found guilty through due process.

That's a good point. Do you have suggestions other than supporters and detractors? Natalie 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External link

(not sure exactly how to do this) : took out the second link to the same website under a different name in external links; having two links to the same webpage (or to a different part of the same webpage) is fruitless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.124.86.84 (talk • contribs)

You say "having two links to the same webpage (or to a different part of the same webpage) is fruitless". That's a novel theory -- there must be many thousands of fruitless links here at Wikipedia. The purpose of a link is to take the user directly to specific information, without the user having to wander through an entire web site hoping to stumble on something pertinent. So one article may have many links into the same web site. The link you removed is to a copy of the 2000 Time Magazine article "Wrong Guy, Good Cause", by Steve Lopez of Philadelphia, a death-penalty opponent who "watched in amazement as the Mumia wave swept the globe". Not fruitless at all, and recommended reading for anyone who wants the actual facts behind some of the recurring Mumia-got-railroaded stories. Since the same article is available at time.com, I'll replace the danielfaulkner.com link you removed with one to time.com. Please do not remove links from Wikipedia unless the specific information they point to is duplicated at another link. --CliffC 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe our external links policy does suggest limiting external links to one per website. Of course, if we were using this as a reference, that would be different. Regardless, it is probably best to link directly to Time, as they were the original publisher of the article. Natalie 06:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

murder and trial section

Yikes, this section needs help. It reads like someone tried to mash two different sections together and didn't integrate them well. Would people be opposed to two different sections, one about the murder and one about the original trial? Natalie 08:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are several inconsistencies in this section and the rest of the page - for example, at the end of the section's 3rd paragraph, we read "Mumia's account...does not explain how a gun registered to him shot Faulkner." But later on, in the discussion of the trial, we're told no ballistics test ever proved his gun shot Faulkner, or even that the gun had been recently fired. I'm not nearly knowledgeable enough on this topic to determine what is truth and what is not, but the obvious inconsistencies should be fixed, if possible. --68.33.212.26 21:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compounding the problem are the overlapping, extensive and out-of-sync discussions of the trial, ballistic evidence and more in this article and the linked "Main article" about the trial, Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal. The section here "Murder of Daniel Faulkner and trial", along with perhaps the appeals (the legal ones), should be summarized here in a few short sentences, then all the details kept in the linked article. --CliffC 00:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck out a sentence above) I've spent some more time reviewing the two articles and my opinion now is that splitting them up last year was a good idea that went bad. If we look at the first "Trial of..." article, created as "a sub-page" of the main MAJ article in the 5 April 2006 split, originally titled Controversies surrounding the Mumia Abu-Jamal conviction, we see it was simply the collected criticisms of the trial, with responses. Since then many well-meaning people on both sides of the issue have recognized omissions and imbalances in each article and added some facet of the other article to correct it, resulting in all the overlap and conflicting statements mentioned above. I think the only way to fix the current mess is to merge the "Trial of..." article back into the main MAJ article. To keep it from being overly large, I propose spinning off Musical tributes to Mumia_Abu-Jamal and International response to the trial of Mumia_Abu-Jamal subpages, linked in the reconstituted main article. The various legal appeals and hearings are fairly stable and well-cited, they would make a good Legal appeals of Mumia_Abu-Jamal subpage. Thoughts? --CliffC 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fine to me. It seems to me that the response to the trial is more notable than the trial itself (compared to, for example, the OJ Simpson case, in which the trial was huge news). So it makes more sense to me that the spinoff articles should be about the response, because those are more able to stand on their own notability - wise. Natalie 23:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“I shot the motherfucker, and I hope the motherfucker dies.”

Not desiring to be needlessly profane, but these are the words of his disputed confession in 1981 ... exactly reported with reference to the US 3rd Circuit Court sentencing overturn ruling by Judge Yohn of 2001 where it states that he exclaimed this -twice-.

The second "motherfucker" blanks out even though I saved it, perhaps for some censorship reason programmed into Wikipedia. Can this please be overridden just for this particular case of a direct quote of significance? It's a key - though disputed - statement and should be reported accurately and fully; including who reported it, who didn't, and how long it took them to remember it. Led the reader decide whether they believe it was actually said, but it is exactly what he was alleged to have uttered in relation to the fatally-wounded policeman.

This Mumia's done a great job of convincing others to help him fight for his life for more than 25 years now .. sure doesn't matter to the widow and the police organisations ranged against him, 'tho.NonlisteningFriend 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the missing MF. It shows up for me, and it did when I first edited the quote hours ago. Hey, this wasn't all just some trick to make me type in that word, was it? Some robot probably has me on its "vandals" list now. :) --CliffC 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poor citation quality

Today several citation-needed tags were replaced by simply "1982 trial transcripts". These are not proper citations. A proper citation points to something like http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/6-21-82.html and is written something like "<ref>[http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/6-21-82.html Mumia Abu-Jamal trial transcript, June 21, 1982]</ref>". I will restore the citation-needed tags. Additionally,

citations of http://www.danielfaulkner.com/docs/SummaryofCaseFacts.pdf are suspect because they lead to a 135-page summary of the case written by some unknown party that pokes holes in various "myths" put forward by Mumia supporters
citations of http://www.danielfaulkner.com/docs/MumiaTrialandPCRAAppealsTranscripts.pdf lead to a huge 2000-plus page lump of a PDF that is virtually unsearchable.

We need to provide trial citations of sufficient granularity that readers can click on a link and go directly to a single day of the trial transcript for further searching. --CliffC 03:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granularity/specificity from the most original source is the most desirable in citations. I found the length of the transcript very daunting. I provided the link to the entire transcript document for those with a particular interest - reasoning it was at least something.NonlisteningFriend 07:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for his sentencing overturn

I have made an effort to comprehend the ruling of Judge Yohn from December 2001. That was the decision to order the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to undertake resentencing within 180 days. That did not have the effect of removing the biographical subject from his death row cell. Being that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania immediately went to a Federal appeal, the 180 day limit is out of force and the only thing in force is that Pennsylvania is restrained from execution of the sentence of death until the appeal judgement is delivered. When it is delivered we would inevitably see efforts to involve the US Supreme Court again. Remember that the sentence and conviction went there many years ago and the Supremes declined to intervene at that time.

Judge Yohn's ruling smacks down every appeal ground raised on behalf of the biographical subject except for one - a mistake in the form of the verdict ballot that was likely to cause the jury to misapprehend that they HAD TO BE UNANIMOUS in finding that there existed any factors mitigating against imposing the sentence of death.

Can anyone refer me to an online source that reveals the content of the appeal brief (or reply) for Abu-Jamal or Pennslvania as the issue now sits before the US Court of Appeal? NonlisteningFriend 10:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition as a "Good" or "A-Class" article

Citations have been supplied for all of the outstanding 'cn' tags. I now believe this article may be examined for promotion on the rating scale for something above B-class where it sits now. It is now comprehensively referenced, it has informative image content, it's factual and objective, and instructive. Most importantly, it's stable and neutral in the sense of not being a propaganda piece for or against the subject's murder conviction. Let me know if you agree that it's ready. TruthHider 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put this article forward as a GA candidate, and also for A-Class article review in Wikiproject:Biography TruthHider 11:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Bullet Picture/ Inaccurate Photo Tag

It seems to me that the photo identified as ".38 Special" ammunition actually depicts 0.22. You can tell by the rimfire base, the plain copper bullets, and the relatively short base. 0.38 is a heavier, centerfire cartridge and usually manufactured with a metal jacket over the round itself.

Woerkilt 07:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)07:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like a gun geek, and therefore I would defer to your expertise. I can confirm that any picture of ammunition rounds in the article was source from the article specifically dealing with that type of weapon/ammunition. If you're right, there's some major pants on the floor here and elsewhere. Any replacement pic?TruthHider 02:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

The article is reasonably well written and has a neutral point of view and stable despite the controversial topic. The article is well referenced, however the references are not standardized, there are several forms of referencing throughout the entire article. The references need follow the same format, please follow a formal format with all the appropriate information included, see Wikipedia:Citation templates for examples or just use the templates.

Two fair use images are used in the article. The Black Panther logo should probably not be used because it is not directly related to article and the logo is not mentioned within the article. The image of David Faulkner needs fair use rationale. Fix these issues and there won't be reason to hold the article from Good article status.Medvedenko 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot more balancing needs to be done before this can be considered a "good article". Only the prosecution's version of events is related, and bio information needs expansion in terms of his life and work; this is a biographical article, after all, but so many things have been removed that there is clearly a POV effort to focus on him as a "convict" than as a major historical/political figure. I would contribute to this effort, but I'm kind of tired of making edits that just get overturned.--Laualoha 01:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re [2], you've claimed that portraying the murder victim in a picture has a tendency to make the section POV. I beg to differ. Even if he had been found not guilty, it still would not do so. It would simply identify the person he was accused of killing without suggestion any opinion of whether he was justified in doing so. You've also said 'only prosecution side' has been covered. If you read further in this article and its sub-articles you will find coverage given and reference made to the statements of MAJ, Arnold Beverly, Ms Maure-Cartier, William Cook, William Singletary and others on behalf of the bio subject's cause as well as his defences 'running man' theory. I have de-tagged and invite you to supply any WP:V citations of yet-unrepresented points-of-view.TruthHider 04:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you to the extent that the picture alone wouldn't make it POV, but my point was that the overall effect is POV, and the picture kinda adds to this effect.--Laualoha 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can supply WP:RS and WP:V content about 'life and work' as well as for your claim that this bio subj is in fact a 'major political and historical figure' I'd welcome it as something that may bring this beyond GA-likely even to FA-consideration. The subject affirmedly is a convict, moreover one adept at rallying others to the cause of saving his own skin for him. That understood, anything he's done with his life and 'work' for the last quarter-century doesn't amount to as much as setting foot beyond the environs of his cell now does it?

What can be said about the content of his broadcasts and writings? If you know, do share. We've already covered the fact that, just for example, for almost 20 years it wasn't so useful as to actually include some explanation of how it came to be that he was found in the presence of the murdered police officer and the weapon that killed him on one night in December 1981.TruthHider 07:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented the suggested changes of the review so that the review may be reapproached an hopefully this now passes GA! Rationales have been supplied on both of the fair use images, and cite templates have been comprhensively applied throughout the article. I will also ask the reviewer if he/she wishes to approach the Biography project A-Class article review

Goddard college alumni

I get this from the categorisation. But:
1. pls supply a reliable source for this
2. what year did he graduate?
3. and with what major/degree?

Also please supply a reliable source for his place of birth in the infobox - which I have assumed to be Philadelphia. Hope it's not wrong :-0 TruthHider 11:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]