| Revision as of 02:52, 14 February 2006 editRandomuser0101 (talk | contribs)2,805 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:21, 3 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,342 edits Assessment: banner shell, Biography, Human rights (High) (Rater) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
<br> |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
==Moore's statements== |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
I'm revising the statement about Michael Moore, but I want some discussion about where Moore's statements should go under. The site which is referenced (poor in their analysis at best, most is politically driven) takes a statement from Moore in "Dude, Where's My Country?" and misinterprets it to paint Moore as being in favor of Mumia's sentence. Moore suggests that Mumia ''probably'' killed the officer, but was mostly in favor of the common reasons for releasing Mumia, unfair trial, abhorrence of the death penalty, etc. In his book, it appears he mostly tries to emphasize the reasons why Mumia doesn't deserve the sentence he had, and not that Mumia was guilty, as it was portrayed. Besides that, ''Stupid White Men'' is very informal, and most of Moore's statements are meant to inject some humor into politics. Therefore, I don't necessarily believe Moore fits in the "Detractors" section. If people agree with this, please move it. ] 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=16:05, 1 September 2007 |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal#Successful good article nomination |
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=155034371 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
: I've updated the comments, which were taken from Moore's book ''Dude, Where's My Country?'', page 189. |
|
|
|
|action2date=04:56, 3 September 2007 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=not promoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=155166609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAC |
|
==POV== |
|
|
|
|action3date=02:59, 8 October 2007 |
|
"Although all five bullets in Abu-Jamal's gun were spent, the police didn't conduct forensic tests to ascertain whether the weapon had been fired in the immediate past (why would they neglect to carry out such a critical process in an alleged murder case of any kind?). However, there is no conclusive test to determine if a gun has been fired recently." |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive2 |
|
|
|action3result=not promoted |
|
|
|action3oldid=162520828 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
My problem is with the "(why would they...any kind)" statement. It is an obvious POV and a stupid one at that, the next sentence says the test doesn't exist! Which makes me wonder why the entire section on ballistics is there. Maybe it should just say something along the lines that it is unsure when the gun was fired, but no forensic tests exist to tell us what happened. I'll leave it up for discussion though. |
|
|
|
|action4date=04:16, 23 October 2007 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive3 |
|
|
|action4result=not promoted |
|
|
|action4oldid=166276429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=FAC |
|
--It's been a week or so and nobody has changed it or discussed it, so I am taking it down now. |
|
|
|
|action5date=04:36, 22 January 2008 |
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive4 |
|
|
|action5result=not promoted |
|
|
|action5oldid=185820457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=FAC |
|
::"Jamal supporters claim that Jackson would later be disbarred for incompetence." |
|
|
|
|action6date=01:01, 4 February 2008 |
|
: This is an example of wikipedia's npov policy being carried out too far, to the point where meaning gets muddled. Either this person was disbarred or he wasn't. If he was, saying so isn't biased, it's factual. |
|
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal |
|
|
|action6result=promoted |
|
|
|action6oldid=188722333 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7 = FAR |
|
== (Old discussion) == |
|
|
|
|action7date = 2018-12-02 |
|
|
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Mumia Abu-Jamal/archive1 |
|
|
|action7result = demoted |
|
|
|action7oldid = 868860633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA |
|
Acording to forensic evidence at the trial both Abu Jamal and Faulkner were shot with .45 calibre bullets. But the prosecution claimed the murder weapon was Abu Jamal's .38 calibre gun. (Faulkner also carried a .38). |
|
|
|
|maindate=July 11, 2012 |
|
|
|otddate=2011-12-09 |
|
|
|otdoldid=464923047 |
|
|
|otd2date=2021-12-09|otd2oldid=1059522805 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=yes|vital=yes|listas=Abu-Jamal, Mumia|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pennsylvania|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philadelphia|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject African diaspora|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== User of "murderer" in the lead == |
|
"Forensic evidence at the trial". This was based off one of the forensic scientists notes next to the bullet. It was his best offhand guess at the caliber of the bullet. |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I think there's some information worth looking at on the site. But I am a dyed in the wool commie pinko crazy longhair. ;-) --KQ |
|
|
---- |
|
|
This is a perfect example of an article that (1) people will love to fight about, (2) people will want to be biased, but (3) we can make unbiased. The article as it stands is clearly biased in favor of the view that Mumia is innocent (or guilt is unproven). For shame. --] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the lead sentence the description of Mumia states he’s “a political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder”. It should be the other way around…..reading “A convicted murderer who is also known for his political activism and as a journalist”. |
|
: One way to do this would be to demand things be cited. It drives me crazy to read bizarre allegations, like "somebody heard the judge say the n word" with 1) no name 2) no citation and 3) the original allegation itself is hearsay. This technique can be abused. Forcing at least a reference for where it came from would limit duplicity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only reason he has a wiki page is because he killed a police officer not because of his journalism and or political activism. |
|
----- |
|
|
Well, it is worth noting that Amnesty International doesn't attempt to claim he's innocent; they just state that they do not believe in the death penalty. They also refuse to call him a political prisoner. ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I tried to make this NPOV and bent over backwards to change as little as possible. The article is still biased in his favor but now is a better encyclopedia article and less biased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should be changed. ] (]) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
Things I changed. The description of the 2001 appeal did not mention the affirmation of the conviction, only the point about sending back for reconsideration (not overturning) the death sentence, for instance. I also added the facts of the case, 4 am, pistol registered to Abu Jamal by his side, brother being arrested, which were also not mentioned. I believe none of these facts is disputed. I also added one pro conviction web site, apparently the only one there is, but quite complete. ] 18:58 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT) |
|
|
|
:*I don't disagree. The only reason he became any of those other things is because he assassinated Daniel Faulkner. ] (]) 18:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::*The article explains that he was both an activist (with the Black Panthers and MOVE) and a journalist (several radio stations) before the killing. Therefore, the newly added claim in the lead paragraph, "During his incarceration, he became a political activist and journalist.", contradicts the remainder of the article. ] (]) 19:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
:Worse than that, I don't think it does a good job of characterizing '''anyone's''' arguments. All the Free Mumia stuff seems to come out of that one linked article, nearly verbatim. ] |
|
|
|
:::*He wasn't known for those things. As a "journalist", he wouldn't have passed notability, nor as an activist. He was remarkably unknown until his crimes. That's like claiming that someone became known as a baseball player because they played little league. They became known in college or pro. My edit said convicted of murder, not calling him a murderer, but was quickly reverted because the other was "stable". ] (]) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*:That's how I also understand it. But I think there are some having an issue calling the murderer exactly what he is. They have some romantic idea about an 'activist' being innocently prosecuted by the 'racist' system. Concerning Mumia, there seems to be a cult around him as well. ] (]) 01:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Most known for the murder, yes. That doesn't translate into having to call him a murderer to writes (loose paraphrase) in the lead sentence. ] (]) 20:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Then why not lead with the biggest source of notability instead of soft selling it later? ] (]) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We don't and won't ever know if he would have been notable if the murder hadn't happened. The status quo lead sentence flows better to me, and the proposed change is inconsistent with the chronological layout of the article. ] (]) 20:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::*You're right, we won't know the "if". We DO, however, know the actual case. There is zero evidence that he would pass ] before he murdered Faulkner. Cook made that "if" irrelevant for us. As for the "chronological layout".... when did that become the standard? Tom Selleck was a college basketball player and served in the military before he became an actor. Both are things the "could" have made him notable. Not only do those things not appear in the lead, they don't precede listing him as an actor because that is what his notability actually stems from. ] (]) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The murder alone also would not be sufficient to make him notable; it's the combination of the murder and related activism, right? I think the current lead conveys that combination of circumstances: "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder ." That does not seem to me to obscure or condone the murder. |
|
|
::::Furthermore, while it is (as I understand things) true that the murder is the single most important aspect to his notability, a description that starts with "murderer", such as the one proposed by 71.168.233.198, seems like it has a quite aggressive tone. Do reliable sources commonly describe him that way? ] (]) 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::A murder alone would not make him notable. This murder got enough continuing press coverage that it would be the source of notability. It has been the subject of a lot of documentaries, specials etc. Second, this discussion said "murderer", but if you look at the actual edit I made, I didn't use a term like that. So maybe we can stop focusing on a term that wasn't used in the edit? Do some RS's use the term? Probably, since one convicted of murder is a murderer, but again, that wasn't used in the reverted edit. I still disagree.....the current lead makes it sound like he was this notable guy who got convicted of murder. In reality, he was an ordinary criminal who was convicted of murder, then his activism got attention after the fact. ] (]) 18:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::None of us have a crystal ball, but the case itself is covered at ]. If Abu-Jamal weren't notable for other reasons, we would normally cover him with a short bio there or at ], not a stand-alone biographical article. That's SOP on articles regarding notable crimes. I'm not seeing any tone issue with the status quo lead, and I disagree with the actual content of the actual , which removed all reference to activism and journalism from the lead sentence and incorrectly states that he didn't do those things prior to his incarceration. This isn't an editorial difference of opinion: "During his incarceration, he became a political activist and journalist" is a provably incorrect statement that you put into the lead of a BLP. ] (]) 18:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, none of us have a crystal ball. That's why I said "You're right, we won't know the "if", but for some reason, you felt the need to state the obvious as if I had claimed otherwise. Your position that "if he wasn't notable for other reasons" is flawed. Even if he never did any of the activism etc, the extensive, enduring media coverage and involvement of celebrities would have passed notability. If what he was doing before his crime was not notable, and there is no evidence that it was, then the source of his notability is the murder. That should be listed first. ] (]) 14:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I was prefacing my own comment, it wasn't a dig at you. No, he's notable because of the ''totality'' of his coverage in reliable sources, which includes but is not limited to coverage related to the murder. ] (]) 17:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::*No, it's not limited to the murder, but the murder is the primary. It's like the domestic abuse complaint against Johnny Depp. the only reason you know about it, the only reason it's in his BLP is that he was notable as an actor first, <u>then</u> it got coverage. Had this dude not been convicted of this murder, it's doubtful there would have been a book deal etc. ] (]) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
The article ] has/had a similar issue. See the ] in its talk page I just added. ] (]) 13:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The source of his notability is the belief that he was wrongfully convicted, that he's been presented as a political prisoner or as someone who was a target because of his political activism. He's notable because his conviction and imprisonment became, rightly or wrongly, a focus of the way that Black people are treated in the criminal justice system in America, the lengthy history of miscarriage of justice against African American activists. The existing phrasing in the article manages to thread the difficult needle of not taking sides in Misplaced Pages's voice. ] (]) 22:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
That's what comes of editing while bending over backwards. The article is much better now, improved by all three of us. ] |
|
|
|
::*He was convicted, more than once, because he was guilty of murdering Daniel Faulkner. ] (]) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*Yes, you've said that. But that's not why he's notable enough to have a Misplaced Pages bio. ] (]) 03:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::*Arguably, that is why he is notable enough. Had he only committed the murder, probably not. But the ensuing coverage, even an ABC news show reviewing all the evidence (and concluding that he did it), was because of the murder. Even the celeb involvement about the case and sentence wasn't because of his political activism or journalism, it was because of the murder. No murder= no notability. ] (]) 19:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
I changed the section heading, because it strikes me as a BLP violation. Like every other human, he's a human ''first''. ] (]) 22:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Calling someone murderer and not write anything else about him doesn't sound NPOV. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:He is a murderer, and should be referred to as such. See e.g. ], a murderer whose other work has helped way more people than this particular murderer, and is still referred to as a murderer. ] (]) 16:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Yeah, I definitely think it's getting better. But jeez, there may be only one or two Daniel Faulkner memorial sites out there, but they're web design is far superior to all the Free Mumia sites put together. All the information on the case and on the man is buried deep beneath slogans. Can anybody find the man's birthdate? That seems like the most basic information to have in an encyclopaedia article. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023 == |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Mumia Abu-Jamal|answered=yes}} |
|
As a bystander dropping by, I thought this was a pretty balanced introduction to the topic. |
|
|
|
This is my second time writing, I'm hoping you can submit this under his Written Works. This is a forthcoming title from City Lights Publishers to come in 2024. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
''Beneath the Mountain: An Anti-Prison Reader.'' City Lights Publishers (2024), ISBN 9780872869264. Edited by Mumia Abu-Jamal and Jennifer Black. ] (]) 21:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 11:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
Looks NPOV at this point, and I think he's guilty, or at least he did something within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's definition of murder (I ''also'' think he was railroaded). I do wonder if "one of the few" in that first external link makes the Establishment look a little more beleaguered than they actually are --] 01:18, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023 == |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Mumia Abu-Jamal|answered=yes}} |
|
Hi, some points that occurred to me, which I will work on as I can unless someone beats me to it: |
|
|
|
{{subst:trim|1= |
|
|
<!-- State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes below this line, preferably in a "change X to Y" format. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could you please move "Beneath the Mountain: An Anti-Prison Reader, City Lights Publishers (2024), ISBN 9780872869264” under “Written Works” on Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Misplaced Pages page to the very top of that list instead of the very bottom? Mumia’s previous works are listed in reverse chronological order so this change would just ensure that pattern is maintained. |
|
* Association of Black Journalists or Black Journalists Association? |
|
|
* The whole paragraph about the "facts of the case" is unattributed. Did this all come from the trial transcript? Did either side dispute any of it during the trial, or does either side do so now? In particular, the text about an "ensuing struggle" does not strike me as very NPOV. I think we should at least throw in an "alleged" or two. |
|
|
* Was Faulkner shot between midnight and 4 am of December 9, or was he shot before midnight and Abu-Jamal arrested the next morning? Pistol "at his side" - in his possession, or was he unconscious, or what? |
|
|
* Was Jackson disbarred? When, under what circumstances, for what reason? |
|
|
* Witness statement item has no counterclaim; do Abu-Jamal's detractors offer one? |
|
|
* One item says the prosecution gave "specific, relevant reasons" for each challenge. Reasons need not be given for peremptory challenges (hence the name). Were they peremptory or not? |
|
|
* "Faulkner was shot with a .38" item refers, three times, to "'''the''' bullet". How many times and where was Faulkner shot, and how many bullets were found in his body? This article implies he was shot at least twice; the ] says 5 times. |
|
|
* How many times and where was Abu-Jamal shot? Were bullets found in him, and if so, did they match Faulkner's gun? |
|
|
* What happened to William Cook while all this shooting was allegedly going on? |
|
|
* More details and/or examples of the non-conflicts and non-holes would be good to have; the item is rather sparse as it stands. |
|
|
* Federal judge ordered in 2001: what was the judge's name? What was the result? It was nearly two years ago, something must have happened by now. |
|
|
* I seem to recall reading somewhere that Abu-Jamal never denied having committed the murder. Any hard data on this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Write your request ABOVE this line and do not remove the tildes and curly brackets below. --> |
|
] 01:41, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2024 == |
|
I do not know what the article looked like when you read it and found that it was biased in favor of Jamal. As I read it now it is exactly what I would expect from people who write that there are "only one or two Daniel Faulkner memorial sites out there", "but they're (sic!) web design is far superior to all the Free Mumia sites put together". Interesting that you still managed to provide more links propagating the case against Jamal and even took the amnesty page out. I especially disliked the ending, so I changed it. I still think that it is pathetic to bring up the pro-Jamal arguments first only to refute them one by one afterwards. I added some more, maybe you can try and counter them as well. Does it make sense to give every idiot the right to change encyclopedia entries? Where do you usually get your information, at "free" republic.com? |
|
|
SONG PARODY: Crying (frying Abu-Jamal) |
|
|
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/147714/posts |
|
|
What should happen to Mumia Abu-Jamal? ('Fry Mumia,' Freep this Poll) |
|
|
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/593435/posts |
|
|
Mar 4, 2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Mumia Abu-Jamal|answered=yes}} |
|
:"I do not know what the article looked like when you read it and found that it was biased in favor of Jamal." Excuse me? Were you replying to my comments, anonymous one? I did not say I found it biased in favor of Jamal. ] 01:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
In the "Representation In Popular Culture" section I wanted to add legendary rapper Tupac Shakur explicitly mentions and dedicated the song "White Manz World" to Mumia, Mutulu Shakur and all the political prisoners who he viewed as his teachers. ] (]) 03:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 03:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Impossible to edit this article == |
|
I like this article a lot as being about as non-POV as you can be. I try to make as many of my contriutions as non-POV as I can, but don't know as I have ever done this well. Rlquall 3 June 04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to make a refinement to one of the categories in this article, but was prevented from doing so since it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! ] (]) 22:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
____________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] You can request an edit to be made. It appears to be locked to prevent vandalism. To get around this, you could create an account and make constructive edits. ]'''|'''] 12:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Just found this page today. I have updated it adding details concerning some of the specific objections the defense has concerning conflicting witness statements, and have added detail to the summary of the alleged confession, including note of the William Pate affidavit. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
== Political prisoner == |
|
|
|
|
|
As far as the evidence goes, Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner if there ever was one. Please don't forget that political prisoners for example in the USSR did also get trials – trials in which typically evidence for them (like Pamela Jenkins and Veronica Jones) wasn't admitted; judges ruled partial; and so on. Highly typical for such cases, his involvement with a political organisation (the "Black Panthers") were held against him. In addition, the police officers involved are known to have fabricated evidence in other cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mumia himself was obviously shot, but obviously not ''after'' the crime by the victim (as the bullet-path shows), so there either has to be another killer involved or Mumia has been shot by the police officer ''before'' he shot himself, in which case it couldn't be murder (but more likely, self-defence). In either case, there's no plausible scenario for Mumia murdering the officer. In addition to that, another man has pleaded guilty to the murder Abu-Jamal was „convicted“ for – if such a trial deserves the name „conviction“. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think a case like this would be called a „political imprisonment“ of a dissident everywhere in the world – only in the U.S., there don't seem to be „political prisoners“, just as there are no "dissidents" .... I will introduce a sentence in that direction if there are no salient objections made here next week or so. |
|
|
--] 19:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Speaking of lack of evidence, where is evidence that he is a political prisoner? Not only is there nothing to back this up, but it isn't even logical. Other black journalists and activists have criticized the government. Why would there be a conspiracy against this one man? And why would he be targeted in such a way that left a police officer dead and him alive and well enough to publish articles from prison? This is absurd. A political prisoner would never be conducting radio shows from his cell and you know it. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I remember something about Mumia not being political active at the time of the shooting - he was just a taxi driver, not a journalist any more. Hmm, I'd need to look that one up. ] 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I think the issues raised by this person (and related information) do lend atleast a partial case for the argument that Abu-Jamal is a political prisioner. To say this is "absurd" because other domestic critics of the U.S. government are not jailed is a non-point. Other countries (I won't name name's) which are almost universally cited as holding many (even thousands) of political prisioners often have some critics who are not in jail for various reasons. Conviction of political prisioners for non-political offenses is extremely common (if not the norm). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The fact of the matter is that at the time (although maybe not as much as in the years preceeding) Abu-Jamal had belonged to groups which it has since been proven were persecuted and targeted by government agents working in secret. While this does not directly imply some sort of government conspiracy behind his Abu Jamal's jailing, it is undeniable that there is a case that it could have been and to ignore this would be inconsistant with the many other Misplaced Pages articles about political prisioners of other nations whose innocence of an accused crime cannot actually be proven either. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
What I wanted to say is: I think he would have got another trial and another sentence if he wasn't a "Black Panther". Remember that, according to Amnesty International, quotes from his early days as a political activist were held against him (see the last sentence of the following Amnesty International statement: http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=7FC249A275DAADCA8025687F00428638). This quotes may have been militant (stating his desire to fight against the police) but are not any kind of evidence in a murder trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think the case is clear-cut (and therefore, I take back the "if there ever was one" of my first statement). Surely there's no political conspiracy against Abu-Jamal, but I think he would have been aquitted if there had not been the will to find him guilty. Remember that no-one can be convicted for murder if there's a "reasonable doubt" as to him being guilty. In Abu-Jamal's case, there certainly is reason for doubt. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 10:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please don't confuse your ability to doubt - based material from media presentations developed over many years and under various standards and motivations with the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" based on the legally admissible evidence presented at a specific point in time, his trial. ] 16:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I suspect that if he had not been a black panther, nobody would have heard of the affair and there would be no media coverage like what he got. No Misplaced Pages article, for a start :) ] 18:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Object to seeing him punished for killing a police officer"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Who is this "third group of activists" that "object to seeing him punished for killing a police officer"? Sounds made-up to me. ] 02:03, May 15, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Surely this is a reference to groups that object to special laws regarding the killing of police officers, making the punishment more stringent than for the same offence against someone else. Having said that, as far as I know Pa. also has a death penalty for the first degreee murder of private citizens, and I don't know of any punishment more stringent than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
My reading of the transcript was that Mumia wanted John Africa as his defense counsel, not as a witness. Can anyone refute this? Excellent NPOV writing, I'm sure it wasn't easy. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
Points re the current version: |
|
|
* What is the source for the stenographer's claim? Who is she? |
|
|
* The paragraph beginning "Conflicting testimony and missing witnesses" sounds like a quote from an Amnesty International report, because of this part: "However, neither of these statements have been seen by Amnesty International". Is it? It should be quoted and attributed, if so. |
|
|
* Many of the questions I raised last November still have not been addressed. |
|
|
] 01:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Registered firearm? == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Abu-Jamal was arrested at 4 a.m. with a pistol registered in his name at his side." |
|
|
|
|
|
What's the source for this? The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doens't have firearm registration. -- Spock |
|
|
:It shows up on sites supporting Abu-Jamal. Perhaps a concealed weapon permit. ] 15:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: what is meant by the quoted statement anyway? I read it and was confused as to whether the (persumably legally owned firearm) was simply in his house/nearby when arrested or whether he actually had it on his person when arrested. Also, is it claimed (or proven) that this gun was the one which shot the police officer? some clarification in the article might be desirable. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
What about Anthony Jackson? The 'Objections to Jamal's trial' section and the 'Support for Jamal's trial section have information that is completely opposite. |
|
|
*"Sabo appointed lawyer Anthony Jackson, who had never defended a client in a murder case, to defend Jamal." |
|
|
*"Abu-Jamal's lawyer (Anthony Jackson) was in fact highly experienced, having served in twenty murder cases..." |
|
|
Shouldn't it be possible to resolve this? Shouldn't there be reliable background information about Anthony Jackson somewhere? ] 17:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"''Sabo appointed lawyer Anthony Jackson, who had never defended a client in a murder case, to defend Jamal. Jackson, who was allowed only $1500 to analyze evidence and to hire expert witnesses, was later disbarred.''" conflicts with "''Abu-Jamal's lawyer (Anthony Jackson) was in fact highly experienced, having served in twenty murder cases, with only six convictions and no executions prior to the Abu-Jamal case. Furthermore, he was chosen by Abu-Jamal after specific recommendation by his friends at the Black Journalists Association. Receipts indicate his defense spent $13,000, not $1500.''" |
|
|
|
|
|
== Chopped things up and reorganized == |
|
|
|
|
|
I chopped up the long lists of objections and points in support. OK, it's a big change on a debated page, but I think it makes things easier to read. I have hardly touched the actual text of the points made, I just moved them around. |
|
|
|
|
|
The titles would probably need changing, I'm not that happy with them. Ideally, everything should be melted down in something not as pro- and con-. Adding more granularity would be good, but that would require actually reworking the points. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm, I'll go back and do exactly that :) ] 15:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, did just about that. This page still needs some serious reworking, how about a "needs attention" flag ? |
|
|
|
|
|
I generally left the original statemetns as they were, only moving text around and adding some "supporters claim that" and "detractors answer that" here and there. I don't want to start an edit war =) However, as the page is now, there is some redundant information, and things could take some rewriting. |
|
|
|
|
|
I also feel the "index" table is a bit too long now, but I think the content is more navigable that way. ny ideas on how better to organize it ? I don't know what's the best way to present controversies :-P ] 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Peabody Award== |
|
|
I'm unsure of the status of Mumia's Peabody Award: as far as I have known, it is not just an urban legend, though the article says that it is a common misconception that he won one; is this true? I googled Mumia +"Peabody Award" and got several hits, including many that seem rather definitive. For this reason, I took out the (seemingly POV) sentence about this being untrue, and added as much info about the peabody he allegedly won (1980, for covering the Pope's visit). Any further elucidation would be appreciated. ] | ] | ] 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: A search in ( - hmm, should we have a list on wikipedia ?) doesn't find him. Since I find some claims on the net that "some claim he won a peabody, but it's crap", and no claims of "some say he didn't win a peabody, but he did", I'll assume that most such claims are just people repeating what they heard without checking things up (or, in some cases, probably expecting the readers to believe them). I'll say in the article he didn't receive one. ] 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bullet points, "supporters say", "opponents say" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to break up the format of lotsa bullet-point statements starting with "Jamal's supporters claim" and "Jamal's opponents say", etc. I don't think it makes the article very readable; plus we shouldn't just put "opponents say" in front of every statement that's harmful to Mumia's case, and "supporters say" in front of every one that supports it. It should be possible to have something as factual as possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think that http://www.danielfaulkner.com/ contains a lot of information and as far as aI can tell it's the most complete resource on the trial, and has many references to the transcripts, though it's not exactly NPOV. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe we should integrate direct links to the ? ] 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==COINTELPRO== |
|
|
This seems to be quite a good NPOV article on a controversial topic. Bravo! I've changed the wording re COINTELPRO from this |
|
|
:Jamal's supporters claim that the FBI ran the COINTELPRO program whose purpose was to harass, disrupt and destroy unpopular political groups such as the Black Panther party. Since Jamal had taken a high profile position with the party as a teenager, he could have been a target. |
|
|
to this |
|
|
:Jamal's supporters say that since Jamal had taken a high profile position with the Black Panther Party as a teenager, he could have been a target of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, whose purpose was to harass, disrupt and destroy unpopular political groups such as the BPP. |
|
|
In the original version, the implication was that there's a lot of controversy about about COINTELPRO's purpose, but in fact I don't think there's any such controversy. Sure, there's controversy about a lot of aspects of COINTELPRO, but not about its basic purpose.--] 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Good move, it makes much more sense that way. Whatever controversy there is around COINTELPRO, it should be on the COINTELPRO article. Here the question is how much this has to do with the present case. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mumia denial == |
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I think this article is excellent, about as neutral as can be. Two points: 1) I have seen a lot of discussion online claiming that Mumia has consistently refused to maintain his innocence. That is, he has never said, "I did not shoot Faulkner. It was/must have been somebody else." But I have seen other sites that claim this is bs, and that Mumia has claimed he is innocent, rather than somehow not guilty on the basis of a technicality. I would love it if someone with more knowledge than I could get to the bottom of this. 2) I think there should be a bit more mention of who shot Mumia earlier in the article, and whether it is clear that Faulkner shot him. I would do it myself but I'm a newbie and I don't want to mess it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
- IronDuke |
|
|
|
|
|
== Updates? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anybody know the current status of the appeals about his resentencing? |
|
|
|
|
|
== needs a summary == |
|
|
|
|
|
Nowhere in the article does it actually summarize what happened at the murder of daniel faulkner. IT reports the witness statements, and plenty about the trial, but there's no summary of the crime itself. Could someone write one up, identifying which facts are in dispute along the way? ] 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Category:American murderers== |
|
|
This category, for the purpose of this article, is POV. Whether or not he is a murderer is a highly controversial claim, and for this article to be NPOV we shouldn't be passing judgement through the use of this category. -- ] 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:He was convicted of murder. For all legal purposes, this defines him as a murderer. Even were one to set that aside, in his own statements, he has essentially admitted to murder (specifically of police officers, in threats against jail guards), if not the murders he is convicted of. -] 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Biographical Information== |
|
|
Anyone have any they want to add to this article? ] |
|
In the lead sentence the description of Mumia states he’s “a political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder”. It should be the other way around…..reading “A convicted murderer who is also known for his political activism and as a journalist”.
The only reason he has a wiki page is because he killed a police officer not because of his journalism and or political activism.
This is my second time writing, I'm hoping you can submit this under his Written Works. This is a forthcoming title from City Lights Publishers to come in 2024.
Could you please move "Beneath the Mountain: An Anti-Prison Reader, City Lights Publishers (2024), ISBN 9780872869264” under “Written Works” on Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Misplaced Pages page to the very top of that list instead of the very bottom? Mumia’s previous works are listed in reverse chronological order so this change would just ensure that pattern is maintained.
In the "Representation In Popular Culture" section I wanted to add legendary rapper Tupac Shakur explicitly mentions and dedicated the song "White Manz World" to Mumia, Mutulu Shakur and all the political prisoners who he viewed as his teachers. Grinchoi (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I was going to make a refinement to one of the categories in this article, but was prevented from doing so since it appears to be locked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 98.123.38.211 (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)