Jump to content

Talk:Assata Shakur/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Rewriting the lede

Below is an example of a possible new first sentence for the lede:

Assata Olugbala Shakur (born July 16, 1947 as JoAnne Deborah Byron, married name Chesimard) is an African-American activist who in 1977 was convicted of the murder of Trooper Werner Foerster stemming from a 1973 shootout with the New Jersey State Police.

Comments? Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, are you proposing only changing the first sentence, and thus mentioning the conviction twice in the lead, or are you proposing removing it from the chronology in the lead? Savidan 17:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As I stated in the previous section, the lede is flawed and needs to be rewritten. To clarify, I believe it needs to be completely rewritten. The above is an example of a first sentence for the new lede. Hammersbach (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
So are you proposing repetition or abandoning the chronological order? Savidan 17:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Neither. I am proposing that the lede follow the policy as set forth in WP:Lead. The example sentence is merely a first step in that direction. Hammersbach (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to write the first sentence as you propose and, without repetition, maintain the chronological order. Savidan 19:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies as I believe I have misinterpreted the original question. I am not proposing altering the current version but rather starting over from scratch. As such, the proper answer to the question raised would be not so much the abandonment of chronological order but rather following WP:Lead which states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic...", or as another editor put it, “emphasis, not order.” Again, my apologies for any confusion that I may have caused. Hammersbach (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Emphasis does not mean order. That means we don't need to randomize the chronological order just based on an arbitrary notion of importance. You have not responded to my lengthy explanation above of why the murder conviction is not the most notable element of Shakur's biography. I see no reason to repeat it much here except to say that 99% of convicted murders have no Wikipedia article. I would suggest that you show us your proposed version of the entire lead here, given what you are proposing, but if you are merely proceeding from the flawed assumption that the murder conviction is the most notable thing about Shakur, you should really save yourself the time. Savidan 17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
My sincerest apologies to the previous editor, but I believe I responded their “lengthy explanation above” when I wrote the following; “40% of this article is devoted to the shootout/trial/conviction of Ms. Shakur for the murder of Trooper Foerster. The remainder of the article is split up among all the other notable things mentioned in the preceding comment. Therefore, as a function of this article, it is accurate to say that she is most notable for her conviction, and in keeping with WP:LEAD it is correct that the first sentence cite this most notable fact.” Hammersbach (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A rather curious metric. Much space is in fact devoted to the trial, only a few sentences to the conviction. The metric you are truly arguing for would suggest including the details of the evidence and witness testimony in the lead. I think we are better off considering the series of events that together makes Shakur notable and explaining them the way they make sense together, which is, for the most part, chronologically. Savidan 20:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a rather curious interpretation. What the previous editor would have us believe is that the trial and conviction are, in effect, mutually exclusive. (Hmmm…) The verdict was the culminating event of the trial. The reason there is so much written about the trial is due to the notoriety of her conviction. Or are we to believe that just as much would have been written about this event had she been judged innocent? Hammersbach (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I have not argued that her conviction was unimportant. I have argued that Shakur is notable for many reasons, and for the combination of those reasons. Therefore your counterfactual misses the point. The first sentence already refers to Shakur as an "escaped convict" and only a few sentences away explains in detail the dispositions of her trials, including her conviction. What you are attempting to argue is that the convictions itself is so notable in and of itself that the first sentence should be packed with even more detail, and that it simply can't wait a few sentences. To do that, you will need to explain away the awkward reality 99% of convicted murders are not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Savidan 15:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting point for indeed, just how can one explain away this “awkward reality”. Since the previous editor cites statistics I suppose in reply I should also cite numbers. In the current version of the lede the term “escaped convict” is used in the first sentence whereas I have offered that the term “convicted of murder” would be more in keeping with WP:Lead. So which term is more appropriate? Let’s count! In the category “Escapees from New Jersey detention” there are two articles listed while in the category “People convicted of murder by New Jersey” there are 19. It is possible though that these numbers run counter to the broader national figures, so let’s take a look. In the category “American escapees” there are 69 articles and in the category “Americans convicted of murder” there 919. Based on this it might appear that it is in fact more awkward that “escaped convict” is in the first sentence rather than “convicted of murder”. To be very direct though, I really believe the whole 99% “awkward reality” argument is nothing more than a red herring. This discussion properly revolves around the contents and scope of this article, and that means that the real percentage of importance here is 40%, not 99%. As I stated previously, 40% of this article is devoted to the shootout/trial/conviction of Ms. Shakur for the murder of Trooper Foerster while the remainder of the article is split up among all the other notable things mentioned. Again, as a function of this article, it is accurate to say that she is most notable for her conviction, and in keeping with the guidance as spelled out in WP:LEAD it is correct that the first sentence cite this most notable fact.
However the 99% diversion is not my main objection with the preceding comments. What I find most peculiar is that I am being chided by the previous editor who feels I am “attempting to argue … that the conviction itself is so notable … that it simply can't wait a few sentences.” I would like to point out that this is coming from the same editor who added the details of the non-convictions to the lede and then a mere fourteen minutes later added the phrase “of which she would never be convicted” to a sentence that precedes the one listing the details. In other words, the previous editor finds the non-convictions so notable that they simply can’t wait a few sentences, and apparently so important that they merit repeating prior to the mentioning the murder conviction. Rather interesting since it comes from the person who admonished me earlier saying that “It is impossible to write the first sentence as you propose and, without repetition, maintain the chronological order.” This is the real “awkward reality” that must be explained away. Hammersbach (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of the article is devoted to the coverage of her many trials. Most of the notable information on those trials has little or nothing to do with the dispositions. How you go from this to saying that she is only notable for one conviction at one trial (the conviction itself takes up a sentence) is beyond me. Repeating this with increasing verbosity is not persuasive. Nor is your bizarre examination of categories. The whole point is that most convicted murderers are not notable at all and thus do not appear in those categories. The only sensible thing to do at this point is to write your proposed version of the entire lead, post it on the talk page side by side with the current one, and have others weigh in. Savidan 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to confess that when I read this reply I had to chuckle. Once again the previous editor is trying to pretend that the trials and their dispositions are mutually exclusive, and that is beyond me. “Most of the notable information on those trials has little or nothing to do with the dispositions.” Is this a statement that we are supposed to take seriously? The whole purpose of a trial is to reach a disposition. “The conviction itself only takes up one sentence.” Wow! I think most people would agree that “convicted murderer” really kind of stands out on the ole CV. Am I being verbose here?
I also found it amusing that the previous editor found my examination of the categories “bizarre”. Since the previous editor once chastised me saying that if I was “merely proceeding from the flawed assumption that the murder conviction is the most notable thing about Shakur, (I) should really save (my)self the time”, I think it only fair that we should compare the term “escaped convict”, which the previous editor finds acceptable, and “convicted of murder” to which they are stridently opposed. Since escaped convict articles are outnumbered by convicted murder articles by a factor of 13 to 1, it is beyond me how the previous editor can come to the conclusion that her status as an escaped convict is acceptable for the first sentence but citing the murder conviction is a flawed assumption. Bizarre, isn’t it? But then, not nearly as bizarre as when the previous editor tried to claim that “the intro reflects much thought and consensus on the part of several editors.“ (I am still looking for that consensus but can’t seem to find it) Anyway, I hope that I am not being too verbose here.
Speaking of verbosity, if there is one area that I wish the previous editor would themselves be a bit more verbose, it would be in addressing the fact that on one hand they are wagging their finger at me concerning repetition of the murder conviction in the lede (something which I have never argued for, one way or the other) and the fact that they themselves have edited in a repetition the non-convictions into the lede. Some of our more astute readers may have noticed that the previous editor failed to address this apparent hypocrisy in their last post despite my rather pointed accusation.
As for the idea of comparing versions side-by-side, no. As I stated previously “I cannot see where there is anything that can really be gained by going through the exercise of drafting a new version and comparing it to the current one which, as I have already pointed out, is flawed.” In fact, and to be blunt, I view that exercise as nothing more than a stalling tactic to preserve a biased lede. How else does one explain away the awkward reality of repetition of the non-convictions? Bad writing perhaps? Hammersbach (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no repetition. I can only assume that you are assuming this is repetitive with the reporting of her trials dispositions in the next paragraph. It is not, as she was never charged with any of the crimes that made her the subject of the manhunt. Savidan 02:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? Specifically which crimes were these? Hammersbach (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, which crimes were these? Hammersbach (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The sentence in question reads, “Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur was accused of several crimes, of which she would never be convicted, and made the subject of a multi-state manhunt.” This sentence is confusing. Was she accused of committing crimes in 1971, 1972 and 1973 which made her the subject of a manhunt? Or was she accused of committing crimes in 1971 and the accusation lasted from 1971 until she was captured in 1973? In any event, and for the third time, what specifically were these crimes that “made her the subject of the manhunt”? Hammersbach (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you posed this particular question while I was busy with exams. However, it is easily verifiable that Shakur was not convicted of any of these crimes for which she was the subject of the manhunt. Read the second second of the article and then compare it to the table in the fourth. The Churchill and Marable references in the body of the article support this fact as well. You may pursue those sources if you desire further specificity to what is already in the article, but you should not remove referenced material simply because you would like more information. The way you have posed the question in terms of years is puzzling to me. A more interesting question is whether we could go further and state that she was never indicted on any of these crimes, which I am unsure about, and in any case is not supported by the reference. Savidan 02:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I remain unconvinced that there is no redundancy (the photo in the Kaufman/New York Times article clearly shows that crimes other than the “killings” were cited), let’s assume for the moment that the previous editor is correct and that any outstanding warrants against Shakur played no role in the manhunt. That being the case, isn’t it a bit over the top to tout the fact that she was never convicted of crimes for which she was only wanted for questioning? Hammersbach (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
For all your apparent love of law enforcement, you seem to have critical gaps in your knowledge base, which makes it difficult to communicate effectively. I have never said that "any outstanding warrants against Shakur played no role in the manhunt" only that she was never convicted of any of the crimes that made her the subject of the manhunt. In fact, it would be more appropriate to attribute that fact to the sources cited, instead of me. I suggest that you google the difference between a warrant and a conviction before proceeding to edit the article further based upon this theory. It may well be the case that Shakur was only "wanted for questioning" (another industry term, that I would suggest does not imply as much innocence as you previously allude to) in connection with some crimes, she was also wanted as an actual suspect in connection with several crimes. I think you will be able to discern as much from a careful reading of the current text of the article, but I encourage you to reread the sources cited if you require further clarification. Savidan 19:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The previous editor wrote, 1) “A more interesting question is whether we could go further and state that she was never indicted on any of these crimes, which I am unsure about, and in any case is not supported by the reference.” (emphasis mine) So yet despite their being unsure about any indictments, much less even a warrant being issued, the previous editor believes the phrase “of which she would never be convicted” is much more appropriate than stating the referenced fact that that four others were in fact identified as the murderers while Shakur and four others were only “wanted for questioning”, and also, and 2) “It may well be the case that Shakur was only 'wanted for questioning' (another industry term, that I would suggest does not imply as much innocence as you previously allude to) in connection with some crimes, she was also wanted as an actual suspect in connection with several crimes.” The “several crimes” to which the previous editor refers can be found in the table in section four of the article and in the Churchill and Vander Wall book, which brings us back round to the problem of redundancy in the lede.
The edit that I have made to the lede is factual, sourced, and neutral. I fail to see how this edit can be reverted as a “disimprovement” given what previous editor opines above. Hammersbach (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are apparently ignorant of the subject matter and have misread even the appropriate section of the article itself. Shakur was not merely wanted for questioning for all of the crimes which made her the subject of the manhunt. You have produced no source which attests to this absurd claim. As she was wanted for crimes with which she was not indicted, there is no redundancy with the sentence in question and the reporting of the dispositions of her actual trials. It would appear that I slightly misspoke earlier on a subject which I freely admitted that I was unsure. In any case, I have changed to wording from "convicted" to "charged" to reflect what is said in the sources, and I think we should leave it at that. Savidan 03:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And with each passing comment the previous editor becomes more insulting. Nevermind...
“Shakur was not merely wanted for questioning for all of the crimes which made her the subject of the manhunt. You have produced no source which attests to this absurd claim.” I would like to take this opportunity to ask the previous editor what sources they are able to produce that show definitively that Ms. Shakur “was not merely wanted for questioning for all of the crimes which made her the subject of the manhunt”, and, specifically, that all of these other “crimes” are separate and distinct from those listed in section four. Contemporary news accounts only state “wanted for questioning” with respect to, as Churchill and Vander Wall put it, the “killings”. Again, the edit I am making to the lede is factual, sourced and neutral. Hammersbach (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You still have not provided a source that supports your version. The two sources added for the sentence support the sentence as written, namely in claiming that Shakur was wanted for substantive crimes. I would further point you to the relevant section of the article; I chosen a few tidbits to excerpt here:

  • "On December 21, 1971, Shakur was named as one of four suspects by New York City police in a hand grenade attack that destroyed a police car and slightly injured two patrolmen in Maspeth, Queens; a 13 state alarm was issued three days after the attack when a witness identified Shakur and Andrew Jackson from FBI photographs [...]"
  • "Msgr. John Powis alleged that Shakur was involved in an armed robbery [...]"
  • [...] Shakur was alleged to have been directly involved with the Foster and Laurie murders [...]"
  • "Shakur was announced as one of six suspects (pictured left) in the ambushing of four policemen [...]"

And finally

  • "After her capture, however, Shakur was not charged with any of the crimes that had made her the subject of the manhunt.[29][39]"

As if the above were not enough I would remind you that the version you are deleting was present at the time of this articles Featured Article candidacy. In the face of sourced information to the contrary, I don't think it's too much to ask for you to produce a source that Shakur was only wanted for questioning for all the crimes that made her the subject of the manhunt. I also don't think it's too much to ask for you to wait until you've convinced at least one other editor in good standing before reverting an established version of the article. Savidan 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Afeni's book?

In the section on Asylum in Cuba, this sentence appears: Shakur's autobiography is one of only two by a female Black Panther, along with Elaine Brown's A Taste of Power. I wonder if the book Jasmine Guy wrote with and about Afeni Shakur merits mention as well? I didn't know how to word it, and obviously the article is already way long as is.

Kudos to everyone involved in this very rigorous article. I assume we're seeing a spike in reads after Bill O'Reilly's latest tirade[dead link]. Scartol • Tok 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

$1 million FBI reward

Does she have to be alive to collect the reward?

Is just her head good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.212.44 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The FBI wanted poster reads, "The FBI is offering a reward of up to $1,000,000 for information directly leading to the apprehension of Joanne Chesimard." I would interpret this to mean that they would prefer that she be apprehended alive. Hammersbach (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Married name

In the context of the intro, married name refers only to the new surname, not the new full name. I don't deny that her first name continued to be Joanne, but saying "married name Joanne Chesimard" implies that she took on a two word last name. Listing her full moniker (as she kept all four names while married) is just repetitive. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Savidan 03:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ideally repetition should be avoided, but there is a redirect here by the name of Joanne Chesimard, the name by which she was known for years. The examples you give above are not notorious persons whose full name, first and last, was known to millions and printed in full in thousands of articles. Take a look at WP:RDR#PLA, it says
We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.
The full redirected name belongs in the opening sentence. I'll leave the method to you. --CliffC (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
My reading of that policy does not demand that each redirect to the article appear in the intro in bold verbatim. Both, "Joanne" and "Chesimard" are in the intro and in bold, and would not cause signficant astonishment in any reader, particularly any reader familiar enough with the subject to type in her name. No one who sees both the words they searched for in bold in the first line of the article would be "astonished". "Joanne Byron" also redirects to this article, and she was also known as that "for years", that doesnt mean we need "Joanne Deborah Byron" and "Joanne Byron" in the intro separately. The examples above were merely to show you that "born [full name], married name [surname]" was the appropriate syntax, instead of "born [full name], married name [full name]". Savidan 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The NJ state police still know her as Joanne Chesimard, right? 192.12.88.34 (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

She was convicted

I have edited the first sentence changing “escaped convict” to read “convicted murderer”. After reviewing all of the notable references for the article (with the exception of the over-cited Kirsta Alix article, access to which I refuse to pay), I firmly believe that this is the most notable event for which Ms. Shakur is known and that this is strictly in keeping with WP:LEDE. Oh, and with respect to all the other edits that have recently crept into the article, I will address those shortly. Trust me, I am in this for the long haul. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Shakur was convicted of several felonies. The lead already makes clear that murder was among them. Your version loses the word escaped, a serious dis-improvement. It also has serious imprecision and vagueness; "murder" is actually an entire category of offenses, divided into degree, based on premeditation, intent, etc. Moreover, the statute she was convicted under was broad enough to include what today would be called "accomplice to murder". Therefore, I think it is best to leave the lead the way it is; no one who read the relatively brief lead, or the article, will be ignorant of the fact that murder figured prominently among the charges against Shakur. I have rebutted your "most notable event" line of inquiry above, and only note additionally here that you have narrowed your focus even farther from the totality of events that make Shakur notable.
By the way, if you email me through the "email this user" feature, I will send you a copy of the Kirsta article. Savidan 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
"Escaped murderer" is correct. It encompasses both that she was convicted of the crime of murder, and that the offense was murder, one of the most serious of felony crimes in any country.
"Escaped convict" is both imprecise and trivializes her criminal acts. Someone who fled custody after a conviction for a trivial non-violent crime could be described as an "escaped convict"; Assata's acts were far more serious and should be recognized as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.212.44 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
" In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout." This hardly omits the mention of murder. Savidan 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The comment made by the previous editor doesn't really address the point being made, does it? Hammersbach (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If someone is convicted of a crime, that makes him/her a convict. Because the convict broke out of jail, she was an escaped convict. I see nothing wrong with that statement. The crimes the convict in question was convicted of could be pointed out in a follow-up sentence. 192.12.88.34 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Photograph shown when linking to FB this article

Why is her defense attorney's face showing up instead of hers when I attempt to link this to FB? Can someone please fix this? It is embarrassing. 97.85.168.22 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Much love. The 2 redlinks have no Wiki source and therefore were apostrophied and brackets removed to improve the look of article. Need to lose 2 redlinks in ref section as well.Weathervane13 04:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weathervane13 (talk • contribs)

too much details !!

The article is so full of details and is very long. many details are unnecessary and should be deleted so that the article is not so boring and long. 197.135.139.50 (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anybody can edit. Just make your deletions, one by one, and see if anbody objects to them. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Felony murder?

I haven't previously looked at this case so I'm not on top of the mass of detail in this article. Nevertheless, it appears to me that, although there was at some point an allegation that Shakur had fired the fatal shot, the prosecution theory that was eventually presented to the jury was that she had not fired the fatal shot, or indeed any shot, but was nevertheless guilty under the felony murder rule. If that's correct, then the article would be clearer if it said so expressly, with a quick explanation of the rule and a wikilink to the felony murder rule article. For example, this bio might state something like: "The prosecution argued that, even if Shakur had not fired any shots, she could be convicted of Foerster's murder under the felony murder rule, which makes every participant in a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony."

Would that be an accurate statement of how the case went to the jury? JamesMLane t c 22:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"1982 photo issued by the FBI"

This photo is in the section Escape. The caption reads, "Shakur in a 1982 photo issued by the FBI". The last sentence in a nearby paragraph reads, "The image of Shakur on the wanted posters featured a wig and blurred black-and-white features (pictured right)". The source for this sentence is a publication that apparently isn't online.

  1. Doesn't the caption state that the photo was taken in 1982? I can't rule out the possibility that the FBI somehow acquired a photo of her that was taken after her escape in 1979 but the caption's date should verified. Wikipedia's page for this file doesn't include a date. Furthermore, I doubt the FBI waited until 1982 (or later) to put out the wanted poster referred to earlier in the paragraph.
  2. Does the source actually describe the photo as the sentence does? It seems silly to me that the sentence calls the subject's features black-and-white as the entire photo is black-and-white. I also take issue with the word blurred. The photo is grainy, not blurred, and this graininess causes the subject's features to be somewhat indistinct, not blurred.

Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from (failed) fac

The article is strongly biased in favor of Shakur. Some examples:

    • Most of the "turnpike trial" section is dedicated to her defense that she couldn't have fired the shot. Well, that's irrelevant, she wasn't convicted of firinig the shot, she was convicted of being an accomplice. That fact gets one sentence, the irrelevant details about gunpowder and her wounds get three quarters of the section. And even the important sentence starts "Although the prosecution could not prove that Shakur fired the shots that killed either Trooper Foerster or Zayd Shakur" - clearly biased phrasing.
      • I agree with you that this defense does not remedy the accomplish charge; however, that's just both of our opinions, it's not a neutral fact. Nor does it make the information "irrelevant". These sectinos present the citable information about what evidence was presented at her trial. Whether it seems relevant to you (or me or anyone else) is not the issue. The important thing is that the article describe what transpired at her trial to the extent that it can be cited. As for the last part: this is not a biased phrasing, this is merely a statement of cited information. The fact that someone was charged as an accomplice because it couldnt be proved that they did the nominal crime is notable. Savidan 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't remove it, just shorten it so it doesn't get so much relative weight. Severely shorten it. Focusing on irrelevancies is an attorney's tactic, we shouldn't. Giving the same page space to prosecution's and defense's case seems a good first approximation; if you consider that the prosecution carried their case, you may even want to give the prosecution's case more space. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I think I've substantially beefed up the information about the trial overall since you've said this, hopefully at least partially remedying this in your eyes. However, I do want to emphasize that the article is meant to cover what happened at her trial, not just what (in whoever's opinion) is "relevant" to the basic factual question of her guilt of a crime. If her trial was interrupted by the building exploding or a gay pride parade, that would be notable too, even though it doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the more narrow question. Thus it is certainly not desirable to remove cited and notable information simply because it is (subjectively) deemed irrelevant to her guilt. Savidan 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Judge Appleby eventually cut off funds, effectively preventing any further expert defense testimony." Biased language, implying that it was the nasty mean judge, who didn't let the truth come out that it wasn't actually Shakur who fired the shot, when that wasn't the point.
      • The sentence does not say that he was a nasty judge. It says that he cut off funds, which he did. That he cut of funds is a fact; that he was a nasty judge or that he didnt want the truth to come out are two possible opinions which could be associated with this fact (although not the interpretation I subscribe to), but they are not stated in the article. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The rather important claim that a trooper admitted to lying is cited to an editorial column by a prominent Shakur supporter, whose profession is professor of theology; in fact that editorial column is used as a source six times.
      • There's the professor and also an investigative reporter for this particlar claim. I'm sure I can find one or two more sources for this, as I agree its important, so I'll get right on that. I don't think there is any source that contradicts this. Savidan 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The escape is glossed over. "No one, including the guards, was injured during the prison break." Biased, clearly implies it was carried out by the forces of goodness, if even the guards didn't get hurt. If something didn't happen, don't write about it. Instead, how about looking how the best known newspaper in the country writes about it? "Killer Says He Helped In Chesimard's Escape" " 2 Ex-Fugitives Convicted of Roles In Fatal Armored-Truck Robbery" And the accomplices weren't just "charged with assisting in her escape;" or "held on charges related to the escape", thurey were tried and convicted, a rather important difference.
      • I can tell this is going to be a recurring problem with you. That no one was injured in a fact; that those who carried out her escape were the "forces of goodness" is just not in the article at all. You seem to be making your comments based on your own emotional reponses to the facts in the article rather than the way that facts are cited or stated. This is one of several citable details mentioned. I will add the conviction info, though. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • No, actually, I am responding to the way the facts are stated. The most neutral way to say that something didn't happen is not to say it. Consider if the article bore the following "facts"? "Despite the overwhelming anger felt by the policemen, who were friends of the murdered victim, Shakur was not beaten, was not starved, was not waterboarded"? "The sentence was not successfully appealed to any court of appeals." "The governor did not pardon Shakur or commute Shakur's sentence." These would all be facts, but no less biased in the way they were stated. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree with this general principle except where the information is cited and non-obvious. To take stock of whehter anyone was injured after any sort of armed incident is quite reasonable. There's a reason that the source mentioned it, and it think it is of an entirely different nature than the examples you give. Are you objecting to this fact entirely or just the way its worded? Savidan 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Shakur maintains her innocence to this day" - innocence of what? Again, remember, she was convicted of being an accomplice, which she doesn't deny. She seems to be insisting she didn't pull the trigger, but that's not what she was convicted of.
    • Instead, how about this, where she continues to advocate "armed struggle"? Fugitive in Cuba Still Wounds Trenton; Chesimard Unrepentant at Trooper's '73 Killing; Whitman Is Irate" Again NYTimes. It's clear bias to say that she says she's innocent of killing people and leave out the part where she asks other people to kill people. Or is "armed struggle" somehow not include killing?
      • It's not clear what you're proposing to add here. Could you be more explicit? Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It is important to say somewhere that she claims to be innocent; but it would be preferable to be specific about the way in which she claims it. I also propose that it is important that she advocates armed struggle, since, while that doesn't mean she did or did not kill anyone, it does seem to say she endorses killing in general in certain cases. The specific NYTimes article there seems to refer to some other (Newsday?) article, that would be a preferable source, if you have access to it.
          • The source just says "maintains her innocence". I'm happy to let the article stand on the more specific claims from Shakur, like the line in her autobiography ("...convicted a woman with her hands up"); the important thing about that source is that it substantiates the obvious (that the internet has been a big part of Shakur becoming a notable figure). I'd try not to use Newsday for anything too controversial, as it tends to play fast and loose with the specifics to make a point. Its not clear where this comment that you're referring to comes from, but I'm not categorically opposed to including it. Savidan 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Sheriff Joseph DeMarino lied to the press about the exact date of her transfer to Clinton State Correctional Institute " - again, biased language. Is it really that important where she was held at each state of her trial and imprisonment? It seems just an excuse to get the comment that police lie in the article one more time.
      • This has been discussed extensively on the talk page. "lied" is the word used in the article cited and by the sheriff himself. It is important where she was held, as apparently it was headline worthy at the time, as was the sheriff feeling the need to misinform the press about it. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where is Christine Whitman's widely publicized statement, in which she attacks Shakur?
      • I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to; there aren't any Whitman quotes in the article cited longer than a few words. If its as important as you say it is, I'd have no problem with you adding it. Savidan 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Not really my area of interest, sorry. By "widely publicized" I mean when I googled around on the Web, Whitman's campaign against Shakur kept coming up in different newspapers. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where is information about the slain police officer?
      • Please be more specific about which information you would like to see about him. This is not his bio (although its likely he'd be deemed notable if an article were started about him). Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Quite right. The proposal is more in the interest of balance, if we can reduce the emotional content that seems to make the reader sympathize with Shakur, we can live without much on the officer.
          • Let's certainly not add any material that doesn't belong just to "balance" something else which is percieved not to belong. If you think there is any "emotional content" which is not covered in your previous comments, please bring it up. Savidan 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "All of the jury members were white" - cited to a NYTimes article, but no link provided. All NYTimes archives are on the web now, provide a link.--GRuban (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is to the perception of bias in the article seen as a whole. The above isn't an exhaustive list of issues, it's just some examples. If you want to argue to keep any specific one of them, that might be all right, if you provide balance. It's the mass of them that gives the impression that the article is trying hard to convince the reader that Shakur is innocent. I can't find an equivalent list of points in the article that argue for her guilt, and presumably there were enough to convinced a jury, a New Jersey governor, and the US congress (I recall somewhere in checking sources that the US congress passed a resolution asking Cuba for her extradition). --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't (supposed to be) like 24-hour news; we don't want an article that is half biased against Shakur and half biased in her favor. The purpose of the article has never been to argue for or against the correctness of her conviction. Rather the goal is to gather every fact that can be cited to a source together. Maybe if you began phrasing your objections more in terms of facts that you thought were missing from the article, instead of generally saying that you would like the article to move more in the "anti" direction, I would be more able to attend to your objections (and I'd be glad to do the leg-work to track down a citable source if you could just give me an idea of the facts that you think are missing). The congressional resolution, her conviction, and the governor's opinion (although not the mysterious quote you refer to) are already included in the article. Savidan 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Update

Much better. Don't go resubmitting it to FAC quite yet, there's still a lot of stuff to fix, but the most important thing, that the article seemed to give a lot more weight to the defense, seems no longer true. I'll list some issues now, there may be others.

  • Godmother bit in lead isn't mentioned or expanded on anywhere in main article - lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest. I recommend either Early life or Legacy with the other rap stuff.
  • It also seems out of place, in the order where it is in the lead, unless she became TS's godmother after 2005.
    • I have changed it to aunt. It is placed after the bounty in the lead not for chronological purposes, but notability reasons. As long as there is no clear causal chain between events (i.e. shootout -> trial -> prison) then they should be arranged by importance. Savidan 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Where do you get that? WP:LEAD says "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..."; emphasis, not order. And even if it were true, what makes you think being someone's aunt is more important than "life portrayed in film and song, letters to the pope and a Congressional resolution"? --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There are clearly two conflicting considerations here which the current lead is an attempt to balance. What order would you propose? Savidan 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "It is at this point, with the questioning of Zayd Shakur, that the accounts of the confrontation begin to differ (see the witnesses section below).[22] Zayd Shakur and Trooper Foerster were killed in the ensuing shootout, and Assata Shakur and Trooper Harper were injured." - The reference to the witnesses section seems unnecessary, since the accounts seem to be given right in this section, afew sentences later. Also, the ordering seems off. Up until now we were going chronologically, then we suddenly jump to the resolution, then we come back to the witness testimony - confusing. I'd suggest sticking to chronologically: At this point, the accounts differ. Account 1... Account 2... Resolution. -- but I can see it another way, but we need some kind of reason.
    • This section mostly gives the accounts of the shootout not given in the witnesses section (i.e. Acoli's trial, statements by police officers who did not testify at her trial, etc.), thus the link to the witnesses section. The resolution is given first in other sources too because it is also "undisputed"; I'll see if I can make this any clearer. Savidan 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Slightly clearer, but still needs work. Specifically:
        • According to the police account, - meaning Harper's account at Acoli's trial? If so, let's say so, right at the front of this paragraph, and remove "At acolis trial" and "At this trial" from the later parts of the para. If not, please clarify whose account and when?
          • The current article wording reflects the wording in the source. The police account means that the reporter interviewed a police spokesperson most likley; the article distinguishes between "police account" and trooper harper's testimony at acoli's trial. Saying whose and when more specifically is not possible from the source. Savidan 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The single paragraph goes back in forth in time. Suspect(s) begin firing. Foerster executed. Then back at shooting starting. Back farther to Foerster arriving, Foerster reaching into vehicle. Then Assata starts shooting again. Then Foerster dies again. Then two pistols are found by his dead body. Have you ever seen Memento (film)? This is like that movie, which is very artistic, but not a clear way to tell a story.
  • and the murder of a New Jersey state trooper - whom? Foerster? If so, say so, we call him that everywhere else.
    • I've reworked this summary sentence; it wasn't just a murder trial, it was a trial over eight different felonies, which is enumerated later in the article. Savidan 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • charged with two bank robberies,... In one of her bank robbery trials ...For her Queens bank robbery trial - where was the first bank robbery?
    • Fixed. This was the Queens bank robbery too. Savidan 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed, but more problems.
        • First, a whole crop of new typos: percieved, absense, had plead, laywer, was also cite ... come on, use a spell checker, that would have gotten three of these.
        • They were indicted for a "series of holdups and shootings by District Attorney Eugene Gold"? I can see it now, "DA goes rogue, joins Panthers"...
        • Why does Williams's contempt result in a hung jury? If it doesn't, don't put them in the same sentence.
        • Shakur's opening statement in her trial for kidnapping a 1975 drug dealer is included in her autobiography - er ... what? Was it an interesting statement? If so, say something about it. If not, why mention it? Presumably a whole lot about her trials is in her books, why mention this specifically?
        • Shakur plead not guilty to indictment - pleaded not guilty to an indictment
        • The trial was delayed until 1976 trial - what?
        • a subsequent judge determined that the manners in which the photos were obtained violated Shakur's rights and ruled the new photos inadmissable. - wait a bit ;the FBI tried to take photos of her during her trial and present them as evidence during the same trial? Evidence of what? Please explain. If that's not what was intended, rephrase and explain.
        • co-counsel opening statement quote has a lot of i's. Capitalize or explain why the lower case is intentional.
          • The above have been fixed. A few things demand responding to: (1) the text of the opening statement is in her bio; this is obviously a cut above just describing the trial. The source found it quite notable, and I think we should as well. (2) the sentence about the FBI photos is accurate. The photos were to compare to the security camera photo which the FBI already had. I'm at a loss over how to clarify this; perhaps you could suggest what would make it clearer for you. (3) The "i"s are just a verbatim quote; I don't want to guess why she wrote in that capitalization or make the quotation inaccurate. Savidan 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Turnpike trial For Shakur's remaining trial, - it's not "remaining" if it started in 1973 and the others weren't dismissed until 1977
    • I've removed the offending wording. It never meant her last trial, only the last to be discussed in the article. I now see why thats more than unecessary. Savidan 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Polls of residents in Middlesex County showed that 83% knew her identity and 70% said she was guilty. - move closer to the "change of venue" line, since presumably this is the reason for the cov.
  • hers resulted in a mistrial in 1974 because of the possibility of miscarriage; Shakur was then hospitalized on February 1 - can you give a date for the mistrial result? Is Feb 1, Feb 1, 1974?
    • Feb 1 is Feb 1, 1974. I think its obvous from the context; do you want me to add 1974 to the sentence again? Sorry, can't offer you an exact date for the mistrial; its one of those things where the article was written after the fact but it doesn't say how much after the fact; I'm guessing it corresponds closely (if not exactly) with the end date of the second trial in the last row of the table. Savidan 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • nine-week trial,[19] on March 25, 1977—back in Middlesex County -- or maybe not. Clarify, were the polls in 1973, or in 1977? Why was the trial moved back, if the jury pool was decided to be tainted in 1973?
    • I haven't found anything that really explain this. We know that the second trial ended in a mistrial because of her pregnancy. We know that when it started back up again she was in Middlesex. I've looked pretty hard for this and haven't found a really good explanation. Savidan 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Following the 13-minute opening statement ... Kunstler moved immediately for a mistrial - this is the first time Kunstler is mentioned in the article, explain who he is before or at the same time as using just his last name, not after.
  • Judge Appleby, noting the frequent defense interruptions which had characterized the previous days - what previous days, if this was immediately after the opening statement?
  • microphone "They just shot Harper! Be on the lookout for this car!" as Harper entered the headquarters station. - I don't understand this bit. What HQ station? Why was it the climax? Is Foster (as opposed to Foerster) particularly important?
    • The headquarters station is explained fully in the shootout section. I'll add a quick clarification in case anyone skips that section. This was the climax according to the author of the nyt article (who was at the trial). Its in quotations because its a direct quote. Foster is the dispatcher. He's a different person from Foerster if that's what you mean... Savidan 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shakur was seated "calmly - why this sentence here? Was she only seated calmly during the radio tapes bit?
    • I've included this sentence because its a rare description of Shakur in the contemporary newspaper articles. Its possibly referring to the entire day, but all they did that day really was listen to the tapes. Savidan 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shakur's defense attorneys had attempted to Shakur's attorney's - what?
  • had also successfully asked a 10-judge panel of the Federal Philadelphia Court of Appeals to order - does the Federal Philly court really have this micromanagement power over a state murder trial? Also, rather than Philly, say it was the Xth circuit court (and link to the appropriate article), since it wasn't really the Philly part that was important, it was the fact that NJ was in the Xth circuit, right? Finally, why is this paragraph here in the midst of the proceedings?
  • Shakur was charged with two bank robberies, the kidnapping of a Brooklyn heroin dealer, attempted murder of two Queens police officers stemming from a January 23, 1973 failed ambush, and the murder of a New Jersey state trooper. ... the four assault charges - something needs rephrasing, the 4AC aren't on the earlier list.
  • the assault charges (atrocious assault and battery, assault on a police officer acting in the line of duty, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to kill)... The other charges were: - ah, here they are. I'd list the charges at the start of the section on this trial, unless they somehow changed in its middle.
    • They are listed here and in the table. If we listed them at the beginning of the section, we'd still have to list them here, or Judge Appleby's jury instructions would become hard to understand. I'd prefer to avoid repetition, unless you can present a compelling reason to do so. Savidan 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Previously that day - don't jump back and forth in time like that
  • In fact, I'd dissolve the paragraph on jury deliberations entirely (moving some of the facts elsewhere); I don't see the anything interesting in the process, just the result, at most you may want to say "took X days" or something.
    • I'm sorry you don't find this interesting, but that's not a good enough reason to discard notable facts. Jury instructions, and what the jury did right before they gave the verdict may be important clues to how they decided. Of course, we can't say they are in the article without becoming guilty of original research, but the facts are important by themselves none-the-less. Some readers find the result important, others the process. The NYT writer apparently found the process interesting, and they published an article about it instead of saving this information for the article that came out with the conviction. Savidan 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Kunster asked that - Kunstler?
  • Criminal charge table - Recommend move up to the section on the other trials.
  • Jury - this is back on the Turnpike trial section? If so, definitely move the table out from between them.
  • Another sixteenth female juror - there were multiple sixteenth female jurors?
  • Get rid of ",though"
  • his association with the jurur - [sic] or juror?
  • Shakur's attorneys sought a new trial on the grounds that one jury member, John McGovern, had violated the jury's sequestration order.[52] McGovern later sued Kunstler for defamation[53] after Judge Appleby rejected Kunstler's claim that the juror had violated the order. - so was Kunstler the only one making the claim? If not, why was he the only one sued? Did McGovern win?
    • I guess McGovern could have sued Shakur's other lawyers if he wanted, but he must have decided that Kunstler's alleged defamation was the most egregous. Its basically impossible to figure out who won this suit without calling one of them up and asking. It's the type of lawsuit that gets a small mention in a published source because its connected with some other notable event, but the resolution of the lawsuit (in or out of court) is not notable enough to get coverage. Savidan 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shakur's defense attorneys were - for all the trials or just Turnpike?
    • Some of her attorney's for the Turnpike trial represented her at some of the other trials, but all the attorney's listed here worked on the Turnpike trial, although they never all appeared in court at the same time, and some of them were behind the scenes. Savidan 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • who died of unknown causes early on in Shakur's last trial - last is which?
  • Judge Appleby also refused to investigate - is that Appleby's job?
    • Don't know what to tell you here. Her attorney's apparenlty thought it was his job; he apparently didn't. The only neutral and citable fact here is that he refused their request to investigate. Savidan 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • her defense counsel's office - one counsel? Which?
    • What the article says is what the source says. Maybe they all shared an office, who knows. Sorry to disappoint you, but I can't improve on the source material. Savidan 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Witnesses section - perhaps best integrated in Turnpike trial section? Also redundancy with the "reports" bit of Turnpike Shootout, that keeps referring to testimony and trial and prosecutor...
    • I would agree with you, except: (1) I can't find a source for when the random driver testified, only this source about his testimony; (2) there's no other good place to point out that Acoli did not testify (important because there are only four surviving eye-witnesses); (3) Assata and Harper's testimony are reported holistically, not strictly chronologically (I've also found sources that note parts of their testimony chronologically and they are included in the trial section, but there are important details that cannot be so placed). I admit its a bit repetitive (although, the prosecutor was not a witness) but I've tried to this this sparingly, and only when it was necessary to give full context to information not form a witness (see above). Savidan 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ...no one at headquarters knew of Foerster's involvement in the shoot-out until his body was discovered beside his patrol car, more than an hour later. - meaning what? Did the defense have a theory that Foerster wasn't actually involved, was killed elsewhere, then planted at the scene? Something else? If someone made something of this, we should say who, and what. If no one made anything of it, we can live without it.
    • The defense did make this an issue at the trial, and therefore it should be included. I can't find anything cited about what "theory" they offered for this; maybe they didn't have one and just wante dot create the overall impression of impropriety. My best guess is that they tried to use it to augment their other claims that Trooper Harper's account was less than truthful, but that's just me. Savidan 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Clinton State Correctional Institute ... Clinton Prison for Women ...Clinton Correctional Facility. - are these all the same, or different? If all the same, pick one name.
  • was transferred to Alderson Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia where she met Puerto Rican nationalist Lolita Lebron[7] and Mary Alice, a Catholic nun, - LL and MA were both imprisoned there?
    • LL was an inmate; I don't think MA was, although I suppose the source is indeterminate on this point. The relevant thing is that she met them. Savidan 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Clinton Correctional Facility for Women - aha, a fourth name, and now a link. Pick one name, link the first occurrence.
  • According to her atttorney Lennox Hinds - attorney
  • Shakur "understates - when? In a bio? In an interview at the time? Understates now?
    • The quotation does not limit itself to any of the three possibilities you mentioned. My guess is that Hinds means that she understates it consistently. However, as it is a quotation, I think it best to leave it as is. Savidan 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • were charged with assisting in her escape - tried and convicted, as I linked to before, important difference.
  • frustrated by residents' refusal to cooperate - which residents? NY, NJ, NYC, Harlem, Bed-Stuy, Cuba?
  • She fled to Cuba in 1984 where she was granted political asylum.[90] The Cuban government pays for her living expenses,[96] to the tune of approximately $13 a day. - "to the tune of" unnecessary slang. I think something like "as of 2008, still lives in..." is good to inject between these 2 sentences.
    • I'll reword "to the tune of" but I think that "as of" is bad practice unless there is serious reason to believe that this is going to change rapdily. Maybe she's really been in Afghanistan for a while, but nothing's been published yet. I think its best not to presume anything unless we have something published to update. Savidan 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Chancellor of the City University of New York, Matthew Goldstein, directed City College's president - is CUNY the same thing as CC, or is CC part of CUNY?
  • Manhattan Community College - link?
  • the internet - capital I, proper name
  • officails - officials. In fact, this is the third spelling error, so spell check the thing, would you? You can just open it in a Firefox edit window, and see what words are red-underlined.
  • Another general issue is ordering ; I point out some specific issues above, but in general, I recommend re-reading the whole article, start to finish, and seeing that everything is in the best place where it is.
    • I believe I've rememdied all your specific suggestions; I'll reread the article, but I doubt that I'm going to change much (I have given a great deal of thought to this already) without an external suggestion. Savidan 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For example, (now ex-)Trooper Anthony Reed sued the force, among other things, over posters of Shakur, altered to include Reed's badge number being hung in Newark barracks, an incident that Reed considered "racist in nature".[125] - comma after number, and need to explain more - was Reed a Shakur supporter? Black?
  • to many "U.S. radicals and revolutionaries" Shakur represents a "venerated (if sometimes fetishized) signification of liberatory desire and possibility". - give the name who says that. "radicals and revolutionaries" tend to be people of action, rather than words, and wouldn't be able to talk like that if threatened with torture. :-)
  • Probably want to find the other editor who objected at the FAC, and ask her to comment, as well. It wasn't just me. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'll invite the other editor to comment too. Thanks again for your very detailed and thorough comments. Whether or not this ultimately becomes a featured article, I think that the article has been greatly improved by your input. Savidan 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

More comments

I think the article is much improved! I didn't do a thorough nitpicky review, but these are the issues that stood out to me:

  • I noticed a few places in the section explaining the NJ Turnpike incident that sentences referred only to "Shakur"; here it probably ought to use first and last names since there were two Shakurs, just for extra clarity.
  • There were several instances of standard units not including the metric conversion.
  • Is there any more information on why the funds were cut off? This still seems slightly POV: "Judge Appleby eventually cut off funds, effectively preventing any further expert defense testimony."
    • Unfortunately, I don't have any further information to offer here. Facts themselves cannot violate npov policy; what about the wording is non-neutral to you? I think the current wording is even more diplomatic than the original. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The second clause is POV and speculative. And incorrect.Verklempt (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
POV, speculative, and incorrect...wow. Being as the current article wording derives directly from a reliable source, can you produce another source which contradicts this? Savidan 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The word "preventing" was the issue. Your fix is fine with me.Verklempt (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This sentence ought to be rewritten so that the clauses make more sense together: " For years after Shakur's escape, the movements, activities, and phone calls of her friends and relatives— including watching her daughter walking to school in upper Manhattan— were monitored by investigators in an attempt to adduce her whereabouts"
  • Has the lawsuit over the CUNY student center naming been resolved yet?
    • I'm unable to find anything on this. As I noted somewhere else on this page, a lot of lawsuits are notable enough when they are filed but their resolution doesn't seem to get media coverage. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd put the jury information after the Defense and Witnesses information. It seems out of place to me in its current ordering. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wonder if the defense was trying to present more expert witness testimony, and what reasoning the judge had for denying more funds (did he just deny funds for expert witnesses or did he cut off funds completely)? If there isn't more info on this, then I guess that's what we are left with, though. Karanacs (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd welcome more info on this if I thought it was published anywhere even remotely credible. My source for this was an investigative reporter. The only contemporary newspaper account that even mentions the expert testimony is the nyt, which is good, but only covers the witnesses themselves, not why they stopped coming. However, intuitively, Kirsta's account does seem likely, as the prosecution proceeded for 8 weeks, and the defense only for 1. Savidan 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This entire article reaks of hero-worship. If you can't see its clear pro-subject bias, then your own beliefs are blinding you. I see much relevant criticism that you are dismissing ad-hominem by attacking the poster. Oh well, another example of why you should never use wikipedia for anything. User:Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.222.219.237 (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Savidan's obsession with Assata Shakur is incredible (the amount of edits on the talk page and the article itself, wow!), it's an excellent example of people using Wikipedia as their own platform: repeatedly rewritting any addition or edit, to imply a lack of evidences, conviction or participation in any illegal activities, while portraying the person like a persecuted martyr, turning the article into a docudrama panegyric. Reading it really feels like an epic tale of mythological hero, a Robin Hood Che Guevara myth. For militants, it's a fantastic story. It's so good I saved it all in a folder: when I discuss with other people about the flaws affecting Wikipedia, I use a sample of articles affected by each issue. For the partisanship category, it ranges from the different forms of political extremism to religious ones - this article and its talk page are perfect for the far-left extremism slot, don't change it! It's better to have live articles when discussing this, otherwise people could assume it's just a momentary issue that will get fixed by the Wikipedia community. --88.177.158.231 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

first paragraph change suggestion

To me, it seems weird that a Convicted murderer, doesn't have the word "murder" in the opening paragraph. i suggest changing the paragraph to:

Assata Olugbala Shakur (born JoAnne Deborah Byron; July 16, 1947),[1] whose married name was Chesimard,[2][3] is a convicted murderer, an African-American activist and member of the former Black Panther Party (BPP) and Black Liberation Army (BLA).

Or, alternatively, the last line:

Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur was convicted of several crimes, including murder, and was the subject of a multistate manhunt.

I think "several crimes" is a vague term, considering one of these crimes is murder. it's not like she was convicted of stealing, money laundering and trespassing...

Also, other Wiki articles are like my suggestion too. for example four people convicted of same or similar crimes, have it mentioned by name (murder, or killing) in the first paragraph:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundiata_Acoli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Allen_(murderer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Arwood

and in a very quick search in this list I've found almost every person has it mentioned in the first paragraph.

I will make my first suggestion as a change to the article, if anyone objects please respond here, and explain disagreement is any exists.Phantom147 (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assata_Shakur/Archive_2&oldid=793154079"