Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 3

Typo

The is a typo in the section "Involvement with the Black Panthers", FBI is misspelled as Federal Bureau of Investigaion.

Sources: "Wettlauf Gegen Den Todd" is misspelled, right is: "Wettlauf gegen den Tod" (one "d"!). German only uses capital letters only for nouns and names, but not for verbs etc. in headlines or titles.

Good work spotting that, and a big "Thank You" to whoever cleaned up this article. It's vastly better than previous versions. This is exactly how controversial articles like this should be handled. I hope it's used as an exemplar for other articles of the same nature, such as the West Memphis Three page. Very nice work, whoever did it.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is reasonably well written

2. Factually accurate?: The article is well referenced

3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers all important points of the subject

4. Neutral point of view?: The article uses a neutral point of view addressing both sides of the issue

5. Article stability? Article is stable

6. Images?: Good use of images with proper image use

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Suggested improvements: Internet references need to include retrieved on date, publisher, dates, and authors when applicable. Don't forget to cite your sources in the Free Mumia section. Could use some copyediting. Don't just use the words "he" and "him" all the time when referring to the subject. Only use those words when it is obvious in the text your referring to Mumia Abu-Jamal. Italics seem to be used on words without reason.-Medvedenko 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How exactly did this article meet the "neutral" qualification? Here's a good example: whoever wrote it refuses to ever state the obvious, PROVEN fact that Mumia shot Officer Faulkner, but in the same paragraph STATES OUTRIGHT that Faulkner shot Mumia. What a load of horseshit. There's no more (or less) evidence that Faulkner shot Mumia than there is that Mumia shot Faulkner. In fact, of the two, only Mumia was ever found guilty of a shooting in a court of law. And yet, we still have to endure this capricious, arrogant, juvenile nonsense where the authors of articles like this use intellectual dishonesty to forward there own anti-Law Enforcement, pro-Murderer bias. How about a little fairness? Either change the article to say "Mumia shot Officer Faulkner", or remove the references to Faulkner shooting Mumia. You know... just so we look like we're mildly interested in fairness, instead of just being monumental douchebags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.105.238 (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the .44 caliber images?

We know Faulkner was killed with .38 caliber rounds, so why the images of .44 rounds and a .44 Bulldog revolver? --CliffC 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Faulkner was killed by a .44 caliber bullet, Mumias gun was .38 caliber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect, read the trial transcript, or at the least read the Mumia articles here in Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was a Federal Arms .38+P with a hollow base. It was fired from a weapon having 8 lands and grooves with a righthand twist, exactly like Mumia's gun.

If I understand the situation correctly, the confusion stems from a note a coroner made on a piece of scrap paper when he removed the bullet from Faulkner's skull "Looks like a .44". This mistake was later corrected, but Mumia's attorney still used this (in court or by opinion, i forget) as defense. --Popoi (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for removal of links to YouTube illegal downloads

(Copied from User_talk:CliffC)
Hi Cliff A few weeks back we communicated about a reference to a documentary "Mumia:A Case for reasonable doubt" in the entry about Mumia Abu Jamal. You considered that one reference citation was sufficient and I agreed. Now I see that two new references have been put up that actually link the reader directly to two seperate YouTube downloads of sections of the film. See refs 39 and 41. These Youtube playouts are entirely illegal as they totally breach copyright. Lawyers have been in contact with YouTube requesting they are taken down. I am writing to you to seek your agreement that these links should be removed immediately.Thanks.User:SeabreamSeabream 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 11 October 2007

Thanks, I have copied your message to the Mumia Abu Jamal talk page and I'll be removing the YouTube links to your copyrighted work in a few minutes. --CliffC 19:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Template mischief - please add this to your watchlists

The new template {{Mumia Abu-Jamal}} has developed into a one-man reopening of contentious issues where regular editors have already reached consensus and balance over the past years. As examples, at the moment categories Political prisoner and Miscarriage of justice are included, as are Marxism and Anarcho-primitivism. The template is overlong and simply amounts to a summary of the article while adding nothing except a lot of POV. IMO this template is unnecessary and disruptive and needs to be removed. --CliffC 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same stuff under a new name — new Mumia template {{M2}} by a "brand-new" editor; includes Police brutality and the Australian term Racial vilification, among others. Thanks to whoever got rid of the last one, please do the same for this, for the same reasons. --CliffC 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Material in the article is offered as a collection of statements - "so-and-so claimed/stated/swore/testified" - each statement verified by a RS, not as factually true, but as to the fact that such a statement was indeed made. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions as to the truth of a statement based on who is speaking. In a template, links appear as fact; many links included in your template (Cruel and unusual punishment, Actual innocence, Falsified evidence) would not be accepted if added as Categories to these articles. They don't belong in the template either. Besides being a collection of back-door POV, the template is unnecessary. Is it meant as some sort of executive summary? That's what the article ledes are for. --CliffC 03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected the page because over the last two weeks I performed 30 blocks of the same banned editor who is using multiple IPs and multiple accounts to evade the ban. Unfortunately, I see no alternative strategy to enforce the ban, other than preventing edits to the page from new and anonymous users.

If you are an anonymous or new editor, and wish to suggest an edit, please either leave a message here or on my talk page. Thanks. DrKay 11:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have to fully protect this page. Any opinions? DrKay (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, that would be entirely appropriate! --Melty girl (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Second the motion. Though even here at left/liberal SFSU I haven't heard much about this case on our campus in years. I actually turned here to find out if something dramatic had changed and I missed the news. As I mull it over, the way it vanished, the conspiracy theorists shifted over to 9/11 and Iraq, I suspect. If I may add one personal wish: the election of a certain candidate makes it more difficult for the old "The Man is Out to Get Us," scenario to divide us all. Peace, Profhum (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Bogus lawyer?

So, User:Bryanlawsf who purported to be Abu-Jamal's lawyer was a York sock puppet too? His stuff looked pretty convincing and I spent time fixing some format errors in it. Man, I hate having my time wasted this way. --CliffC (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong-caliber claim

Several elements that could have proven Mumia innocent were completely ignored, one example of this is that the bullet that killed the police officer could not have been fired by Mumia's gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.20 (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect, read the trial transcript, or at least read the Mumia articles here in Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If I understand the situation correctly, the confusion stems from a note a coroner made on a piece of scrap paper when he removed the bullet from Faulkner's skull "Looks like a .44". This mistake was later corrected, but Mumia's attorney still used this (in court or by opinion, i forget) as defense. --Popoi (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talk • contribs)

Free Mumia Section is confusing

The free mumia section needs a rewrite. The entire section is one paragraph consisting of 2 sentences, one of which is compounded with about 8 semicolons. It takes an active effort to understand what it's trying to say. Someone who knows what is trying to say should rewrite it to something that it can be understood. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Please replace the Gov Ed Rendell.jpg image with Image:Ed Rendell.jpg (the commons version). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. The image is the subject of a Commons deletion discussion started by you. Sandstein (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also wouldn't be valid as a fair use image, as there are plenty of free images of him around. Also, it's up for deletion here too. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then let's wait until the deletion discussions are over. Meanwhile, it would be pointless just to replace one contested version of it with another. Sandstein (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mumia's .38 revolver

The article states "[r]evolver purchased by Abu-Jamal to defend himself as a cab driver in 1979..."

Where are the reliable source(s) which indicates the following: a) The revolver was purchased - not stolen, etc. b) Mumia's purpose to "purchase" the revolver was to "defend himself"?

My personal view is that "Mumia" was correctly tried and convicted, so it really irks me that we are tilting things towards his benefit here. And regardless of my views, it certainly is speculation on our part to assign a motivation of "defend" to Mumia on the revolver possesion. Personally, I think he is a cold-blooded killer and I think it unfair that we let it slide and assign him a 'pure' motivation of "defend" when plenty of people think his motivation for having a gun was to be an armed thug, not a self-defender. Where is the reliable source? Why are we imputing motives - on a speculative basis at that! 72.167.31.56 (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the qualifier as soon as the page is unprotected. It was added by an editor and is not supported by the reference given.--Looper5920 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A thug? He was a reporter.

I Can't believe it ! Now we're supposed to "prove" that he purchase the gun for defend himself ? Obviously, you don't know how justice works. It's up to you to prove that he stole the gun, it's up to you to prove that he's an armed thug. "I think and many people think" is not a proof. I'm glad you're not a judge. BTW, I guess you don't possess any gun, right ? kaolol 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.199.43.4 (talk)

Sure. It is up to editors to prove that he stole the gun, or that was an armed thug. So it is up to editors prove that he bought the gun to defend himself. You are right about the ""I think and many people think"" not being any kind of a proof.

minor correction

In the section titled "Life as a prisoner", under "Writings and broadcasts", There is a note by Bob Dole's name (R-KA) intending to identify him as a Republican from Kansas. "KS" is the proper abbreviation for this state, so it should be (R-KS). There is no state abbreviation of "KA".

Changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

cynthia white syntax

Hi -- The current Cynthia White language strikes me as a bit awkward; I did a rephrasing, and DrKay correctly pointed out that it changed the meaning. So here's another attempt that hopefully doesn't change the meaning. The text currently reads:

Cynthia White died in 1992, before being able to respond to...

What about

Cynthia White died in 1992, before allegations were made that she had falsified her testimony.

-- It's a minor point, but the "before being able to respond to..." phrase is a bit awkward; I had to read it several times to make sure that I had the sense of it (and apparently didn't, since my original proposed rewrite didn't fully capture the meaning). Eliminating the more complex verb form (what is that, present perfect tense to refer to a past event?) makes it a bit more readable, I think. I'm not at all wed to any particular rewrite; I'd just like it to be clearer than it is at present. --Lquilter (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

-- Surely there were accusations made while she was alive. I guess what matters is that the accusations were not made in court until after she died. How about something like this?

Cyntia White died in 1992. Subsequently, it was alleged that she falsified her tesitmony.

-- Austin Murphy (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems quite clear to me. --Lquilter (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with either. DrKay (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I"ll put in Austinmurphy's version, which I think is clearer than mine. --Lquilter (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't really say that she falsified her testimony, as it was given by someone else when she was dead. Billytrousers (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. White testifed in 1982. White died in 1992. Williams claimed White had lied in 2002. Hence, allegations that White falsified her testimony occurred after White's testimony and death. DrKay (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Theories and Rebuttals Section

Could we make a section that puts forth all of Weinglass's theories on why his client is innocent, and subsequently summarize the prosecution's rebuttals of these theories?

Or would presenting both sides like that be considered one-sided because it makes the Mumia supporters look like idiots?

Billytrousers (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Polakoff photographs

Under "post-trial developments" mention that these exist and that his attorney says they expose information helpful to him that wasn't explored in the 1982 trial. The police were satisfied with their own crime venue photographs and the defence had access to those in 1982, at least before the end of the trial.

• Claims on behalf of the biographical subject
• Blog journalist's rebuttal
• 4 of the photos featured here

208.113.241.125 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

B.A. & M.A.

I'm skeptical of the source listed. It's a bio for his publishing company--of course they want to make him seem to be better educated. Can we find a more reliable source, especially when other sources (See, e.g. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HST/is_5_6/ai_n6194201/pg_1) say he was a college drop out? Agnamus (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Introductory line.

I've rephrased "Mumia Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to death"... into "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American journalist who was convicted and sentenced to death"... The first line of the article is the first line seen by the reader, and should therefore state concisely who the person is. In an encyclopedia, you can't start an article with "X was sentenced to death" without first establishing who X is. Incidentally, look at the introductory line in the Wikipedias in other languages:

• "Mumia Abu-Jamal ist ein US-amerikanischer Journalist und schwarzer Politaktivist." (German)
• "Mumia Abu JAMAL estas nigra usona ĵurnalisto kaj politika aktivisto." (Esperanto)
• "Mumia Abu-Jamal es un periodista y activista político negro estadounidense, acusado del asesinato del policía Daniel Faulkner y sentenciado a muerte en 1982." (Spanish)
• "Wesley Cook, mieux connu sous le nom de Mumia Abu-Jamal, est un journaliste et militant afro-américain né le 24 avril 1954 à Philadelphie (Pennsylvanie, États-Unis d'Amérique)." (French)
• "Mumia Abu-Jamal, all'anagrafe Wesley Cook è un attivista delle Pantere Nere, scrittore e giornalista statunitense." (Italian)
• "Mumia Abu-Jamal is een Amerikaanse journalist en politiek activist." (Dutch)
• "Mumia Abu-Jamal – dziennikarz i aktywista polityczny z Filadelfii." (Polish)
• "Mumia Abu-Jamal, pseudônimo de Wesley Cook é um ex-integrante do Partido dos Panteras Negras que se tornou jornalista na Filadélfia e ficou popular com o seu programa de rádio "A voz dos sem-voz"." (Portuguese)
• "Mumia Abu-Jamal is a former Black Panther Party member, cab driver, writer, and journalist from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." (Simple English)

In all those languages, the article begins by establishing who he is (job & nationality). Aridd (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The rewrite isn't acceptable. It introduces POV by portraying him as a wronged political activist when he is, in fact, a murderer. DrKay (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi DrKay, I'm open to hear otherwise, but from the very little I know of the subject, and looking at the lead sentence I fail to see how the recent change makes it POV. The only addition it makes was to state that he was a journalist. Again, I am not familiar with the subject, but on the face of it, the 1st, or even 2nd nor 3rd paragraphs suggest why he would be otherwise notable - although I'm sure he is notable, otherwise there wouldn't be a long FA quality article on him. Anyway, i could be wrong, if you could clarify. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to DrKay: Huh?? I fail to see how my edit "introduces POV by portraying him as a wronged political activist". I wrote no such thing, nor did I imply it. I actually have no view on the Abu-Jamal case at present, simply because I don't know enough about it, and I don't establish views without thoroughly informing myself first. So I can assure you that I'm definitely not trying to push a POV. Perhaps you could clarify? As I've explained, an encyclopedia article about a person should begin by establishing who that person is. You cannot start an article with "X was convicted..." without first establishing, in a concise way, who X is. As I've demonstrated, the Wikipedias in other languages all do it in the proper encyclopedic way. Aridd (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"[he] courted controversy" sounds like something he consciously did - ie, he went out and chased controversy. Thus, suggest this could be subtle and inadvertent POV. Rather, his actions have "attracted/caused controversy" maybe? Or similar? regards --Merbabu (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the fact that he is/was a journalist disputed? If not, what's the problem with having it in the opening line? I honestly don't understand why that seems to be controversial. Aridd (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My view (one not familiar with the subject) is that if him being a journalist is significant to his notability - ie, significant enough to be one of the few things able to be mentioned in the first 3 sentences, then leave it in. If his significance has nothing to do with being a journalist, then leave it out. I've changed to this position since Dr Kay rejigged the lead to bring some of the notability issues to the front - before this the 1st an 2nd just suggested that he was a guy trialed, convicted and sentenced to death for murder - not overly notable. By the same token, saying in the first half sentence he is an america prisoner, is probably obscuring his notability. --Merbabu (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I suppose "Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American who was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner." is OK as an introductory line. The reason why I introduced "journalist" is because it's common practice to indicate a person's job / occupation in the first line of the article. Aridd (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Immortal Technique - Revolutionary Vol. 2

In the 2003 Immortal Technique political rap album Revolutionary Vol. 2, Mamia appears on two tracks:

-- "Revolutionary Intro", in which he introduces the album saying: "You're listening to Immortal Technique, and this is Revolutionary Vol. 2, bringing you the truth in the form of hip-hop. From death row, this is Mamia Abu-Jamal."

-- "Homeland and Hip Hop", in which he provides a speech about hip hop's relationship to Homeland security.

Ben.wedin (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why can't the brackets be left in place (no editing required) and the wiki presentation code be changed to display dates formatted to the reader's personal preference (if he has one) just as they are now, but simply without the blue highlighting. Seems like this would make everyone happy. --CliffC (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never liked linking dates and the 6 reasons you mention are quite compelling. My only reservation is that I don't want to have a semantic fight on an article that already has enough other fights. Can you show examples of other Featured Articles that have had the dates delinked? -- Austin Murphy (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both replies. Austin, I happen to have comparisons handy from a Featured List. You may wish to compare the previous autoformatted version with the cleaned-up version. Scrolling down side by side is best, but the difference is clear by comparing one after the other, too. Numerous FAs are free of DA.

Cliff, we tried that tack for two years, at WP and then at Bugzilla, WikiMedia's site for developer stuff. That fell on deaf ears. Even an 88-person petition asking for the decoupling of the linking and date-autoformatting systems languished. They're just not motivated. Developers, especially volunteers, tend to steer away from discretionary tasks, especially where the method and outcome are uncertain to them. In any case, I believe DA is a solution in search of a problem. Who cares which comes first, the day or the month? Tony (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me if the date autoformatting here goes away. In my own writing I've found myself recasting a sentence to avoid adding another blue link to a section where the rest of them actually lead somewhere. --CliffC (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Cliff. Can't get a stronger endorsement than that! Tony (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead section rewrite

I've rewritten the lead section of the article. The lead section did not follow the recommendations listed at WP:LEAD in several ways.

1. Complicated legal details don't belong in the lead section because the lead needs to be highly accessible and engaging to a general audience.
2. honors such as street renaming from foreign municipalities don't really meet the notability threshold for lead paragraph inclusion.
3. The chronology should be mostly linear, especially within a paragraph or section.

-- Austin Murphy (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Many biographies include proper pronunciation of the subject's name. Perhaps that should be included in this article. I have noticed that when saying his first name, most people I know and most journalists seem to put the accent/emphasis on the second syllable ("mu-MI-a"), kind of as if it were Spanish. Yet when I've heard Abu Jamal's broadcasts, I've noticed that he stresses the first syllable ("MU-mi-a"). --Melty girl 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now the "Abu" part. As it is now, it's uh-BOO7, with a glottal stop at the end. kwami (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've amended that, perhaps someone with better hearing/more interest in his broadcasts can check against the subject's own pronunciation. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I myself have pronounced it "mu-MI-a", I do believe that this pronunciation is incorrect. After listening to his own personal broadcasts on prison radio, I have noticed he pronounces it "MU-mi-a". I believe we can all agree that we should pronounce it the same way Mumia Abu-Jamal himself pronounces it; the name was, after all, given to him by a Kenyan woman who spoke the language from which the name is derived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.213.183 (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Introductory line

Is it relevant to include the race of the murdered police officer in the first line? This doesn't seem neutral. --Gotophilk (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The thread you're responding to is eight months old, probably a dozen leads have come and gone since then, the only mention of 'white' here today is Mumia supposedly getting a beating from 'white racists' when he was just a lad. --CliffC (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My apology, 'white' was indeed in the lead (added on December 30) but was apparently removed a few minutes before I looked for it. --CliffC (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Category Murderer

I have mentioned the planned wit of certiory in the German article. We have an ongoing discussion about the category "murderer" in the German Lemma and its apllicability to this very case. According the german category, question is wether there is sufficient doubt about Jamals Guilt uttered by relevant organizations. PLease provide me with relevant sources, if any. I understood Amnesty and others have focused on an alleged unfair trial, less on guilt. --Polentario (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hallo Behz, first thnx for the edit. I erased the GoogleGermish - its not useable, sorry.

• If your answer is true, German category Murderer would be applicable, together with the fact that Human rights watch and AI focused on trial, not on the guilt.
• How about the english category - this article shows a variety of categories expressing Abu-Jamal being convicted and sentenced but does not categorize him as a Murderer. --Polentario (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He is in Category:Murderers, in the sub-category Category:Americans convicted of murder. DrKay (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thnx. a similar split in subcategories would be suitable for the german Wikipedia as well. Abu-Jamal has a certain support in Germany, reflecting a strong anti-american sentiment and distrust in the US judicial system common on the left but as well on the +- far right. --Polentario (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Erich Mühsam Prize he got in 2001

The information about this prize was inaccurate and/or misleading. It is sponsored by the individual that was cited, not "awarded" by him. The fact that the sponsor is in the city of Lübeck is incidental to the prize; therefore, it is irrelevant and misleading to call it the "Lübeck Erich Mühsam Prize". The government of the city of Lübeck has nothing to do with this prize. Also, in this context, the identity of the sponsor is irrelevant and hence a distraction. To what are the false edits due? Perhaps some editor relied on the output of computer translations of German language Web pages. Notice also there was a grammar mistake in the following sentence. Hurmata (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Erich Mühsam

Be this as it may it is disgusting to have Mühsam' s name dragged in to make propaganda for a maoist and racist (and perhaps murderer) like Abu- Jamal. (I am nevertheless not for the death penalty as long as (if) there is any reasonable doubt it was murder).--Radh (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to believe that Mühsam would object to being mentioned? A very widespread view on Mumia Abu-Jamal in Germany and elsewhere in Europe is that he was probably framed and is a political prisoner. Otherwise he wouldn't be honorary citizen of Paris, for example. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Mühsam not a pacifist and RäteAnarchist, and not Leninist and anti-KPD? At least that is what I would like to think, I may be mistaken.

P.S.: Just had a look at the wikipedia entry for Mühsam and see that he was at least since 1925 close to the KPD. I had ignored or forgotten that. But there also is the issues of the dreadful (if normal) treatment of his wife in the Soviet Union at the hands of the Stalinists,

Abu-Jamal in the 70s was a maoist, had been a part of the BPP, gun carrying black-leatherclad neo-leninist propagandists of revolutionary action. No doubt he is a political prisoner (as were RAF, June2nd here in Germany). If he commited crimes he did so for ideological reasons. But does that mean the state is not allowed to put idealistic cop killers in jail?

You are/would be right, if Mr. Abu-Jamal has really been only framed. And I am not saying I am absolutely sure he has not been. But please have at least a close look at FrontPage Magazine' s many essays on the Panthers. And if you don' t want to believe Horowitz, simply have a look at the Panther propaganda cartoons with the charming ideology that police (pigs) ought to be slaughtered ("Pig is pig and pig muß putt" as the early Berlin terrorists put it). The Panthers websites have a lot of stuff and Emory Douglas has had a big exhibition in L. A. recently. ((I have bookmarked some stuff on the Panthers on my delicio.us site -"ralfdh", but it is in a bit of a messy state)).

The french and german love for hate-americanism and any not so noble political savage (Fanonism) is the only reason for the blind admiration of any and all Panther (and any other black or colored gang) activity. Herbert Marcuse being taken for a ride by cpusa leader Angela Davis is a great symbol or caricature for this European Orientalism.--Radh (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"any other black or colored gang" - anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.169.211 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New comment

as a juror in the mumia case I am going to add some factical information and fix incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.122.45 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but please do not add anything not already published by a reliable source. Wikipedia does not accept original research. --CliffC (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous user has added obvious WP:BLP violations such as "You can smell MOVE people from a mile away because they hate taking showers." to MOVE. I reverted them. BLP violations such as personal attacks in article space or unsourced strongly negative comments are taken very seriously by Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, Wikipedia doesn't seem to care about "strongly negative comments" when it's the victim being maligned, now does it? Never once in this article does it say that Mumia murdered someone, but it says all over the place that "Faulkner shot Mumia". Here's an idea: let's stop pretending that Wikipedia is unbiased. It's CLEARLY biased in favor of whatever teenager with a bad haircut and a Rage Against The Machine album who decides to pop in and Fight The Man by supporting murderers and smearing murder victims. We see this kind of nonsense in every single thread regarding a murderer. Go check out the West Memphis Three page if you want to see how "unbiased" Wikipedia actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.25.142 (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Just out of curiosity, why does this article state that "Faulkner shot Mumia", but never states that "Mumia shot Faulkner"? Given that, of the two of them, Mumia is the only one who was ever proven in a court of law to have shot someone, it seems only fair that we either stop hedging the issue when it comes to Mumia, or we remove the line about Faulkner shooting Mumia. I mean hell, it might have been a space-alien using Faulkner's gun. Since that's the logic people are using to suggest that it wasn't Mumia who shot Faulkner using a gun registered to Mumia, it's only fair if we give Faulkner the same benefit of the doubt.

Unless, of course, the point is that we're just assholes, and grant convicted murderers more courtesy than we do their victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk • contribs)

The article is phrased in this way because both the defence and the prosecution agree that Faulkner shot Abu-Jamal, and commentators also agree on this point. Whereas, not everyone believes that Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner. Opinion on that point is divided. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is his point. The absurdity of what you are saying is why he wrote the paragraph. Every criminal will always proclaim their innocence. It just seems that in this case we have decided to believe him b/c the conspiracy theory invovlved jives with the political views of so many of our editors who come to Mumia's "defence." --Looper5920 (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Most (not all, actually) criminals proclaim their innocence. But most are not made honorary citizens of Paris and Montreal after their conviction. Or supported by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, for that matter. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the French are a great group to reference, especially after the Ira Einhorn debacle.--Looper5920 (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you reject independence of the courts in the US as well, or just in France? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to mention somewhere that many of Abu-Jamal's so-called "supporters" do not question his guilt, but simply call the trial unfair. --CliffC (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be quite inappropriate. From what I know about how such organisations generally operate, they have one relatively high standard before they intervene on behalf of someone, and another much higher standard before they actually say the person is innocent. For the former they need to convince themselves that he is innocent; for the latter they need proof beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously not every innocent victim of a framing by the police can prove their innocence. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this, but I was under the impression that when it comes to intervention, many organisations just need to be convinced that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice, not the suspect is likely innocent. In other words, even if the suspect may very well be guilty or more likely they simply don't know they will still intervene. The same way of course they will intervene before a convinction if they believe it necessary regardless of the likelihood of the person being guilty. (This is not of course because they like to see guilty people go free, but simply that they recognise there is a good reason most criminal courts, including those in the US require a person guilty beyond a resonable doubt, and require certain standards for evidence, e.g. for it to be collected legally not in an illegal search and disallow confessions given under duress etc and they also recognise that the fact that a trial has already happened is no reason to allow any. In many cases in common law countries, it may be about setting a precedent as much as anything to try and prevent any other similar incidences in the future and in such a circumstance if there are multiple similar cases they may choose the case where they most believe the person is innocent.) There many be some for reasons of time, funding etc only intervene when they believe the suspect is innocent but provided they believe there's sufficient wrongdoing to warrant at least a retrial I suspect a number of organisations will be willing to intervene. There are also likely some in between, e.g. only intervene when they believe that the evidence available does not prove the person guilty beyond a resonable doubt (which does not of course they mean the person is innocent). Of course when they actually declare someone innocent, that's a whole other kettle of fish, and would indeed likely mean they are substantially convinced that the person is innocent. But in any case, this is completely OR and unsuitable for the article. The only thing we could perhaps mention if we don't already is, what they have publicly declared, e.g. they believe there was a miscarriage of justice, that the suspect is innocent etc. It may be suitable to mention the circumstances, if publicly declared and notable (i.e. covered in reliable secondary sources), when an organisation will intervene in their articles but not here. The only case it will be suitable here is if it is connected to the case, e.g. if an organisation explains in connection to this case that they intervene when they believe there's a miscarriage of justice regardless of the putative guilt or innocence of the defendent. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the original point raised, as has been explained, there is apparently no doubt or dispute that Faulkner shot Mumia Abu-Jamal. There is however substantial dispute, as covered in multiple RS about whether Mumia Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner. The article does of course, as it should, cover the evidence against Mumia Abu-Jamal and explain the prosecutors version of events, as well as mention the fact he was convicted after a trial. It then of course, goes on to explain why some people still question the trial or the finding of guilt and briefly explains the other evidence available to support this. It also briefly explains the views those who have questioned or opposed this dispute. This is the way, such disputes are handled on wikipedia, as they should in any decent encyclopaedia, giving the information, in accordance to weight as supported by reliable sources and allowing the reader to decide rather then deciding for the reader what they should believe and then trying to force them to accept it. If there was substanial dispute about whether Faulkner shot Mumia Abu-Jamal then that would be covered but there isn't so it isn't. If you don't agree with the way wikipedia works, then it is probably not the place for you. Incidentally, Mumia Abu-Jamal is still covered by WP:BLP but Faulkner obviously is not although I do not believe that makes any difference here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the evidence, to believe there is reasonable doubt that Mumia shot Falkner this is what you have to believe: There was another shooter at the scene; he/she had a 38cal firearm with similar balistic characteristics to Mumia's 38 revolver; and somehow spent shells were left near Mumia which are consistent with the slugs in Falkner's body. That is obviously getting into science fiction territory. I haven't heard any evidence that the balistics analysis was unreliable. The defence that "it was a 44cal not 38." is based just on rumor. A doctor said the wound looked like a 44cal wound. That wasn't a balistics analysis. The bullet fragments were 38cal. But it was from powerful cartrige thus leading to the doctors observation.

I really doubt there are any countries that would have aquitted him, except perhaps some juries in the US. Most European courts don't have juries, and the burden of proof isn't as great. In Mexico he certainly wouldn't have had a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.168.26 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is completely OT but it seems to me the French courts have handled the Ira Einhorn case completely appropriately, refusing to extradite him as long as he would face the death penalty, something which quite a number of countries do not allow and also refusing to extradite him as long as he would be imprisoned as the result of a trial in absentia, again something which many other countries do not allow. If anything, it says more about the other country involved that they allow such things and attempt to demand that other countries enforce their standards that other countries disagree with. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why can't the article say that "Mumia shot Faulkner" there is clear evidence that he did and no evidence that he didn't. There are people that think say that the Nazi didn't commit the Holocaust or the Holocaust didn't happen but the wiki page on that isn't written as thou there is any doubt about what accured. Wikipedia is not a place where the truth should be suppresed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.135.124.161 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is highly biased!! I added in some counter info to all the information cited from "Justice for Faulkner" but I can't counteract the pervasive bias. Also the structure of the article is somewhat nonsensical--"prosecution" "defense" and "post-trial claims"? It would be better organized by talking about what the witnesses said and whether they were credible, then what the gun ballistics said and why they were controversial, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.176.29 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not substantial dispute about whether Abu-Jamal shot officer Faulkner. He was proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a court of law. When a nutcase like Hutton Gibson says that the holocaust didn't happen, able minded people know that these are just the ravings of a madman. Likewise, the position taken by the Mumidiots is not the subject of any legitamite debate.Mk5384 (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Arrest for murder and trial Section

The first paragraph of this section is confusing.

The stopped vehicle belonged to William Cook, Abu-Jamal's younger brother. In the altercation, Abu-Jamal was wounded by a shot from Faulkner, collapsed on the sidewalk, and was apprehended by the police.

Huh? What altercation? With whom? Where was Abu-Jamal? In his cab across the street? In Cook's car? Where was Cook? I realize the answers to some of these questions go to the heart of the ambiguity about the case, but surely there are certain facts not in dispute, such as that Abu-Jamal was in the general vicinity. Abu-Jamal's own statement of what happened clears this up somewhat, but is presented much later in the article. There must be a way to present, in a neutral manner, facts not in dispute, as well as both sides of the disputed details in a manner that does not make it seem as if Abu-Jamal magically appeared at the scene immediately before being shot. Armandtanzarian (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and editorializing

As is common for a contentious topic such as this, there has been a flurry of edits and reverts regarding a few phrases in this article. One, which I have just reverted, is the addition of "despite the overwhelming evidence against him" into the trial section. I have taken this out because it does not reflect a WP:NPOV and is poor encyclopedic writing due to its editorial nature. The evidence against Abu-Jamal that led to his conviction is factual and laid out in the article, so we should let the reader form their own opinion of whether it was overwhelming.

A separate edit changes the active voice "Abu-Jamal shot and killed Faulkner" with "Faulker was shot dead" (paraphrase). There was a comment to see talk, which I think refers to the bias section above. As I read it that section, I do not see consensus that the passive voice should be used. In my opinion the passive voice here is not only a poor choice editorially but also subtly but significantly weakens the neutral point of view of the article. Jminthorne (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a consensus for your version. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the bias discussion is too forked and rambling to be used as consensus for either version. I am fine with either waiting a few days to see if anyone else posts an opinion, or inviting feedback at 3rd opinion or RfC. Jminthorne (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

While I usually dislike the passive voice, I think it works better here because a) a good chunk of the interest in Mumia and this page lies in the fact that there is some doubt as to whether he killed the officer. The passive voice reflects that, while the rest of the article lays out the evidence that he did kill him and makes it clear that many jurors and witnesses believed this to be true. b) the passive voice avoids taking a stand as to whether he killed the officer or not. Writing Mumia killed the officer, in an article about a man that many believe is innocent, is taking a stand on one side of the fence. c) the passive voice increases the narrative flow of the article. We find out what happened, then we see the evidence, then we see the decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.62.154 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I removed the following from this section:

The references and treatment evoke him either as a representative of death row prisoners in the United States, as a revolutionary, as a man either deservingly or undeservingly subject to punishment, or as a convicted murderer capable of enlisting others to the cause of maintaining his life and opposing the imposition of capital punishment.

This is so diffuse that it is meaningless.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Who Was In The Car?

The way the article is worded it gives the impression that Abu-Jamal was driving by himself in his brothers car and he was pulled over. It's not mentioned that his brother was there or involved at all except to say he gave a statement at the scene. I'd clean it up myself but I'm not sure what the facts are based on ths article. 173.73.59.18 (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Added "Abu-Jamal's own vehicle was parked across the street." DrKay (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to Court/Docket sheets.

I have available the 'court portal' of my area and you can easily look up Wesley Cook-Mumia's birth name-and you will find that thisman was charged in 1972(aged 18) with carrying a concealed weapon. I submit the appropriate links-you can look about yourself as well. You can more than likely from this webpage find your way to the court transcripts.

at age 18: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPArchiveReport.aspx?matterID=102629468

Date of murder: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPArchiveReport.aspx?matterID=102880897

Court Summary from Jan 82-btw he pled guilty to the gun charges: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CourtSummaryReport.aspx?matterID=103268363 docket sheet: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPReport.aspx?matterID=103268363

interestingly there is another man named Wesley Cook whose b-day is in 1956 with quite an arrest record. The same b-day as Mumia's younger brother William, the other man involved in the crime. William's aka included Wesley Cook aka Mumia AbuJamal: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPArchiveReport.aspx?matterID=103014999

Recent Appeal as of 12/7/09: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/SupremeCourtReport.aspx?docketNumber=602CAP

Thing is, Cook, aka Abu-Jamal was prosecuted once of carrying a concealed gun since he was at least 18. Daniel Faulkner was shot point blank in the face(part of the autoposy). There is no doubt that Mumia and his brother were involved in the death of Faulkner. A first degree conviction should stand on the fact that it is the law in PA, when a police officer is murdered. Removing the info that the police officer was killed in the line of duty was removal of a fact in this event. It just seems as if the NPOV of this page is in question over and over again. Clearly Mumia was protecting the younger brother who was always in the habit of being in trouble: http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/mc.aspx

(look under the name William/Wesley Cook, dob 1956)

It's patently obvious, based upon court documents and transcripts that Mumia and his brother caused the death of Daniel Faulkner. Neither should be allowed to get away with it as Mumia's brother has, and how Mumia still tries to get out of jail and allow no one to pay for the crime of murder.This is not a POV, but logical and based upon factual information. Brattysoul (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

His brother William Cook

Did Jamal's brother William Cook ever testify? The article says "Abu-Jamal did not testify in his own defense. Nor did his brother, who said at the crime scene, "I ain't got nothing to do with this."[42]" Why didn't the prosecution compel testimony from William Cook?

Bronze950 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably because investigators were unable to get a statement from him. If that was the case, no prosecutor would put him on the stand without having first obtained a statement from him that incriminated his brother. 74.118.32.5 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Are prosecuting attorneys unable to question unfriendly witnesses? Does a brother have immunity in a capital murder case from testimony? Is that the reality of the actual judicial system, prosecutors never pursue discovery is the court room by examination or cross examination? Are they that lazy, corrupt, or what is it that prevents the prime witness from being examined in court? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if testifying is likely to incriminate the witness. DrKay (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand, how is the possibility of the witness incriminating himself relevant? Are you saying that he exercised his 5th amendment rights? That would be an explanation that made some sense but it still doesn't explain why they didn't force testimony where that right would be asserted and some examination would take place. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any direct sources for that, but Cook was charged, tried and convicted for aggravated assault against Faulkner. Prosecutors can't call defendants to give testimony at trials directly related to their own crimes. So, rather than Cook refusing to testify, I think it was a case of prosecutors not calling him. DrKay (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a smart truthful person ...

... that knows or can say what the matter of fact in the murder case here is? 1981 was only 30 years ago, were the forensics completely botched? The matter of fact of whether or not Abu-Jamal was the shooter should be clearly determinate since I take it the wounds he received prevented him from leaving the scene.

A .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver, belonging to Abu-Jamal, with five spent cartridges was retrieved at the scene. The shell casings and rifling characteristics of the weapon were consistent with bullet fragments taken from Faulkner's body.[36] Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed: Abu-Jamal's struggle with the police during his arrest would have rendered any such test results scientifically unreliable.[37]

The above seems to be the problem. Is there a failure of understanding of scientific forensics purposeful or otherwise or do the rifling analyses unambiguously identify the murder weapon? Were his fingerprints found and analysed on the weapon or was that evidence contaminated? I don't see how his struggle would have necessarily rendered any and all evidence taken at the crime scene unreliable (e.g. powder from the repeated firings). In the case of Who the Fuck is Jackson Pollock the Pollock fingerprint did it for me, especially the facts surrounding its discovery. It looks like people confuse here two regrettable things, homicidal racist police forces as that of Philadelphia probably was and may still be and the facts of a particular homicide. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a comment about the facts not the article, but since you asked...Yes. He killed him. The evidence was conclusive, and the "doubt" seems to increase in proportion to distance from Philadelphia. For a good account of the evidence, and full trial transcripts, read Smerconish's book on the topic. 205.156.84.229 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing SPJ references

I am removing a claim that Abu-Jamal was a recipient of awards from the Society of Professional Journalists as a search on the SBJ website only reveals 2 articles about Abu-Jamal and neither make any mention of him winning any awards of any kind. The cite that makes this claim of SPJ awards references a book which is biased in favor of Abu-Jamal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.190.35 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Obama pardon

Although Obama has shown no interest in such a pardon, why is Obama under intense pressure from his supporters to pardon Mumia? 172.129.244.51 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is a test of whether or not Obama is of sufficient "blackness", whatever that means. 38.104.59.114 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether to report that Faulkner was killed by Mumia Abu-Jamal

I'm removing the recent edit that said that Faulkner was killed by the subject. The subject was convicted of the murder, but whether he actually did it is in dispute. WP requires that all significant viewpoints be represented fairly, and since considerable doubt exists about whether the subject actually committed the murder, reporting conclusively that he did is POV. By the way, I agree that the subject's own claim of innocence is generally insufficient to require neutral wording about culpability. My argument is not that the subject himself has claimed innocence, but that large numbers of *other* notable people have said that the subject's guilt has not been fairly proven. MichaelBluejay (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So basically, you're refusing to allow anything like "intelligence" or "logic" enter into the discussion? No one who's actually familiar with the case claims "not to believe" that Jamal killed Faulkner. Usually they just say that he "didn't get a fair trial." Furthermore, he was convicted of that very crime. So to claim that there's any sort of debate over whether or not Jamal killed Faulkner is sheer idiocy, and furthermore, it's insulting. I note that you have no problem saying that Faulkner shot Jamal, even though Faulkner was never convicted of such. It would be nice if people who take it upon themselves to act as Editors would exhibit just a tiny bit of human decency when dealing with articles involving murder. Try and extend at least the courtesy to the victim that you insist on giving to the murderer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of line that is POV and not fact

'His struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test'.

This cannot be included in the article as neutral fact, as it is a point of view disagreed on by prosecution and defence. I am deleting it:

The expert defence witness George Fassnacht states, in citation 37 (http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/pcra/95-08-02.html)

on page 58 of the transcript:

'Q. And were you able to identify areas based on your review of those materials where you felt work should have been done in 1982 and wasn't done for lack of funds? GF. Yes. I believe that the powder residue testing should have been duplicated by the defense to ascertain why lead residue was found, primer gun residue was found on the jacket, and no powder, no gunpowder residue. And an examination of the bullet itself to, the bullet that was removed from Officer Faulkner, to determine if there were any markings on there which would identify it or rule it out as being fired from the evidence weapon. The absence of any mention in the reports of testing of the Defendant's revolver to determine whether or not it had been recently fired, most common of which is smelling it. There is a particular smell to a recently-fired firearm which lasts for several hours. And the last item I believe was the testing of the Defendant's hands, which probably could have been accomplished without too much difficult, to determine if in fact he had fired a firearm.' on page 123 of the transcript: Q. If we add in Counsel's little addition here, that would be all the more reason why it would be a likely failure to show anything on this test -- now we got another handcuffing of the hand -- does that help show that there is more residue or make it less likely that there is residue? GF. It depends on where the handcuffs, as you have stated, where the hands were handcuffed. Where they remained. You have given me a position behind the back with the dorsal surface of the hand against the clothing, the back of the coat jacket, whatever. And we agreed that that could result in the destruction of residue. But if, on the other hand, somebody had a hand handcuffed and it was stretched out there is no reason the test couldn't be performed. Q. So does Mr. Weinglass' addition aid you in this inquiry? GF. Well, I believe as I understood just now what he said, that a hand was handcuffed -- Q. Yes. GF. -- not behind the back. Q. Yes. GF. And that hand would have been proper, a proper subject for the test we've discussed. Q. Does that aid you in answering this question, Mr. Weinglass' addition? A. I think I just answered it. Q. I didn't -- A. Unless I missed something, I'm sorry. Q. I didn't hear an answer in those words. I was wondering. A. Well, I am saying that given the conditions that he has -- Q. Yes? A. -- set forth, that there would be purpose in doing the test and one could expect reasonably to find residue. and on page 125 of the transcript: 'Q. Are you saying within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty you expect to find gunshot primer residue on Mr. Jamal's hands? GF. It's possible. Q. No, beyond a reasonable degree of scientific certainty is beyond possibly, it is beyond -- GF. It would be speculation on my part. In fact you are speculating that the residue had been destroyed and therefore there would be no point in taking the test. But in fact you don't know that the residue was destroyed. You're assuming that because of certain activity that took place, that this residue is gone and therefore it would be pointless. I don't know that. Therefore this line 'His struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test' is being removed from the article forthwith. PadraigT (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Selective editing of the transcript to support your own opinion is obviously not going to work when we can all read it for ourselves: Question: Now, at that point Mr. Jamal began struggling with several policemen at the scene of the crime, he attempted to keep his hands from being handcuffed behind his back by flailing his arms. It took several officers to bring his hands behind his back in order to properly handcuff him. You were not aware of that, were you? Fassnacht: No. Q. I assume you were also not aware that after Mr. Jamal was transported to Jefferson Hospital to be treated for the gunshot wound he received from Officer Faulkner, that upon being removed from the police wagon he then engaged in another struggle with the police, refusing to be removed from the wagon, then refusing to walk on his own and then refusing hospital treatment, all the time resisting police. It got to the point where a Municipal Court judge had to order the hospital because of his refusal to comply with their requests, she ordered the doctors to save his life if they could despite what he was doing. Defendant was handcuffed to the hospital gurney while awaiting this order for medical personnel to provide their services. Then the emergency room personnel removed his clothing, which consisted of a jacket and two shirts, in order to operate on him, of course. Then he was operated upon and remained in the hospital several days. Now, we are talking about, the area that you're, I guess, referring to is the web (indicating), the surface right here (indicating)? Fassnacht: And the palm. Q. And the palm. And you have already said that you remain abreast of literature in the field and you try to, basically, consider these factors, don't you, when you give your expert opinion? Fassnacht: The factors that you have just annunciated? Q. Yes. Fassnacht: The struggles and various -- Q. Yes. Fassnacht: Well, it is entirely possible that during a struggle, I don't know where he was grasped, but if you are saying that they had contacted his hands, particularly where a great deal of pressure was applied, they could have very well destroyed traces of powder residue if in fact such did exist. That is a possibility. Q. Yeah, well, let's just assume that when you are handcuffed behind your back most people are handcuffed like this (displaying)? Can you see me? Fassnacht: Yes. Q. This means that that web surface that you are describing is in direct contact with your body surfaces or the clothing that he wears; would that be fair to say? Fassnacht: Is that what, sir? Q. Would that be fair to say? Fassnacht: I didn't catch the last few words. Q. This portion between the index finger and the thumb would generally be in direct contact -- Fassnacht: Yes. Q. -- with the body surfaces and the clothing he wears? Fassnacht: That's reasonable, yes. Q. Well, I would like to read for you an excerpt from a text by, which was edited by the doctor slash attorney -- both a doctor and a lawyer, I guess -- Cyril Wecht? Fassnacht: I know him well. Q. You know him well? Fassnacht: Yes, sir. Q. His book was published in 1981, just about the time this murder was occurring. It's called 'Forensic Science, Law, Science, Civil and Criminal.' Dr. Wecht's publication, is his publication relatively widely known in your profession? Fassnacht: Yes; it is a three-volume set which is frequently updated, I guess, like an lot of legal texts, once a year. Q. That's right. This is volume three. Fassnacht: Yes. Q. And to quote it it says, firearm discharge residues that may be deposited on the shooter's hands can easily be washed off, wiped off, or, after a short period of time, worn off. Research has indicated that after approximately two hours of a normal day's activity, substantial amounts of the residue will be spontaneously lost, making it difficult to conclude that gunshot residue was present on the suspect's hands. Would you agree with that? Fassnacht: Not entirely. Q. What part don't you agree with? Fassnacht: I would, I would say if you adopted Dr. Wecht's statement as it stands there would be no further use for a police department using this test. But in fact they do. And why? Because they expect to find something. So why do this, why spin wheels, why do a test if you don't expect to find the residue? Q. Well, no test was done, was it, in this case? Fassnacht: No. Q. So they weren't spinning their wheels, were they? Fassnacht: Well, they didn't do the test. They didn't attempt to do the test. Q. Well, let me read you this. Fassnacht: But is the test still available is the question and is it presently used and if so why if it has no value? Q. Well, I guess I will ask the questions for a little bit longer. Fassnacht: Well, I don't mean to put that in interrogatory fashion. I am aware of my position, I am not asking you a question. It's rather a, by way of explaining. Q. Okay. Fassnacht: It is a rhetorical question, if you will. Q. Yes. You likewise are familiar, of course, I am sure with a work called 'Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation,' it is the third edition, by authors Svensson, Wendell and Fisher? Fassnacht: Yes. Q. Yes. At page 240-241 of that text, which is, that chapter is entitled Gunshot Residue Analysis? Fassnacht: Yeah. Q. They say that when primer is detonated, microscopic particles of gunshot residue are deposited on the hands of the shooter. They are present on the hands of the shooter with the greatest concentration being in the web area. The area that you described? Fassnacht: Yes. Q. These particles adhere to the hands but are removed by washing, wringing the hands, placing the hands in the pockets, and even handcuffing behind the back. Studies have shown that gunshot residue material will remain on the shooter's hands for up to about six hours. The particles are in the highest concentration immediately after the shooting and are eventually all lost over time, depending on what actions the shooter takes. Now, in addition to disagreeing with doctor-attorney Cyril Wecht, do you disagree with that statement? Fassnacht: Well, I would say first off I observed that they disagreed with Cyril Wecht. Because he says two hours. And it seems to be a disagreement among the published experts. Q. Not as to the activity that removes it? Fassnacht: We agreed on that. Q. That what? Fassnacht: I believe I agreed with you that being handcuffed with the hands behind the back could expose the web surfaces to the clothing and result in the loss of residue. Q. If you were them, the Philadelphia Police, knowing the activity that I have described to you that Mr. Jamal was engaging in, tell me when you would have snuck in there and taken that test from him, at what juncture, at which struggle? Fassnacht: Well, if they really wanted to take the test and if there were enough officers on hand I suppose he could have been spread-eagled and his hands held out and somebody grabbed a leg or two. It sounds preposterous but if he were struggling that vigorously, I suppose that would have been the only way to do it. And in light of what you told me, that test may have been very difficult to perform. Q. And when he was finally released from the hospital days later, are you suggesting that they should have taken the test then? Fassnacht: Oh, certainly not. That's -- Q. Certainly what? Fassnacht: Certainly not. That's preposterous. The test has to be done almost immediately. To continue directly from the above testimony, copied and pasted from the above source: Fassnacht: Certainly not. That's preposterous. The test has to be done almost immediately. Q. Well, what did they do that you are criticizing, sir? Fassnacht: The test as a tool, as an investigative tool to law enforcement, was available. The test was in use by the Philadelphia Police Department at the time. The test could have been used to determine whether or not in fact this gentleman had fired a firearm at the time he was alleged to. And the test was not used, whether there are reasons that it could not be effective or there was no attempt to use the test. Q. What do you think would have been the likely results if they had taken this residue at any point? Fassnacht: That would be speculation on my part. Q. And it would be fair to assume that they would have gotten no results because if people lose these particles 100 percent over the course of an ordinary day -- and they are not handcuffed behind their back and fighting with lots of police, are they? Fassnacht: No. Q. -- would it be reasonable to assume, Mr. Fassnacht, that it would have been a futile act and worth nothing at all? MR. WEINGLASS: Objection, Your Honor. Because Counsel's hypothetical did not include the fact that Mr. Jamal's hands were handcuffed to a stretcher within a half hour of the shooting when he was in the hospital but he did not include that in the hypothetical. So I object to the question as not being inclusive of all the facts in the record and available to Counsel who questions him but who conveniently omits key facts and then asks hypotheticals with those facts omitted. MR. GRANT: I will rephrase the question. BY MR. GRANT: Q. If we add in Counsel's little addition here, that would be all the more reason why it would be a likely failure to show anything on this test -- now we got another handcuffing of the hand -- does that help show that there is more residue or make it less likely that there is residue? Fassnacht: It depends on where the handcuffs, as you have stated, where the hands were handcuffed. Where they remained. You have given me a position behind the back with the dorsal surface of the hand against the clothing, the back of the coat jacket, whatever. And we agreed that that could result in the destruction of residue. But if, on the other hand, somebody had a hand handcuffed and it was stretched out there is no reason the test couldn't be performed. Q. So does Mr. Weinglass' addition aid you in this inquiry? Fassnacht: Well, I believe as I understood just now what he said, that a hand was handcuffed -- Q. Yes. Fassnacht: -- not behind the back. Q. Yes. Fassnacht: And that hand would have been proper, a proper subject for the test we've discussed. Q. Does that aid you in answering this question, Mr. Weinglass' addition? Fassnacht: I think I just answered it. Q. I didn't -- Fassnacht: Unless I missed something, I'm sorry. Q. I didn't hear an answer in those words. I was wondering. Fassnacht: Well, I am saying that given the conditions that he has -- Q. Yes? Fassnacht: -- set forth, that there would be purpose in doing the test and one could expect reasonably to find residue. Is that -- Q. Are you saying here today, that within a reasonable degree of, I guess for you it's artistic certainty, you after all that activity would have expected to find gunshot residue on the hands of Mr. Jamal? Fassnacht: First off I have to, all of this business is not art. Only the forensic comparisons of fired bullet specimens and fired cartridge cases. The rest is science. Q. The part you are talking about is science? Fassnacht: Yes. Q. Are you saying within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty you expect to find gunshot primer residue on Mr. Jamal's hands? Fassnacht: It's possible. Q. No, beyond a reasonable degree of scientific certainty is beyond possibly, it is beyond -- Fassnacht: It would be speculation on my part. In fact you are speculating that the residue had been destroyed and therefore there would be no point in taking the test. But in fact you don't know that the residue was destroyed. You're assuming that because of certain activity that took place, that this residue is gone and therefore it would be pointless. I don't know that.

The statement as it stands:

'Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed: his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test.'

I believe it should read:

'However tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed.' PadraigT (talk) 03:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That would omit key information. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That information is in fact supposition posited by the prosecution and refuted by the defence as per the bolded testimony above. The statement as it stands: 'Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed: his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test.' I believe it should read: 'However tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed.' PadraigT (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Given the testimony quoted above by PadraigT, would 'Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed; the prosecution asserted that his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test.' be acceptable to the two of you?— --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not keen because all the experts are agreed that the test can be compromised by time and contact. It's just that Fassnacht argues the test should have been done anyway. I would prefer to keep the original wording but change "would have compromised" to "could have compromised". DrKay (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate these suggestions. A problem for me in his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test is also the word struggle. Witness Dessie Hightower (pages 130-131 and and pages 162-165 of the following webpage of testimony http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/6-28-82.html#tumosa) states under both examination and cross-examination that the defendant was beaten and kicked by between 3 and 5 of 8-9 arresting officers (the remainder looking on, according to his testimony) prior to the defendant being placed in the police van (and this after the defendant having been shot in the right chest by a 0.38 caliber gun at a range of 12 inches or less - on this both sides agree) - so this word 'struggle' is problematic. Given that, then what is being argued as compromising the value of the test(s) is a series of hypothetical, disputed events. In the original testimony (http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/6-26-82.html#tumosa) all that's testified to by the prosecution's own witness Dr Tumosa is that the result of handling tests in general can be diminished over time and with activity, and then the prosecution posits a few loosely stated hypothetical events, and asks whether all taken together would in theory compromise the value of the firing test. The actual occurance of the events is not established. I think the whole area of testing and struggle is generally a problematic area to make a short and indicting statement about, which is why I think it might be best to remove that second half of the sentence. PadraigT (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be said that the test is unreliable after time and contact. Otherwise, there's no explanation of why the test wasn't done, which leaves the reader in the dark. DrKay (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not an adequate explanation: the mere fact that there might be a false negative is a poor excuse for not doing it at all. If it's positive, it's evidence. If it's negative, there's a struggle to explain it. It should be routine to do it anyway. Besides which, "his struggle with arresting police at the scene" is not anywhere described (in the appropriate section it merely says "was apprehended by the police"), and as such isn't NPOV, if the witness statements PadraigT cites above have any relevance. Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Chobert parking yes, but: there's more to it.

In any event, there also are no crime-scene photos that depict a taxi parked behind Faulkner’s squad car. Indeed, the official police crime photos, as well as those taken even earlier by Polokoff, show no taxi behind Faulkner’s car. Chobert’s cab’s absence from crime scene photos raises an inescapable issue: either Chobert did not park behind Faulkner’s patrol car as he claimed in sworn trial testimony, or police removed his car less than 20 minutes after arriving on the scene and before investigators and a department photographer had gotten there...an action constituting illegal tampering with the crime scene. Further raising questions about whether Chobert was actually where he claimed to have been during the shooting, a diagram of the crime scene drawn by Cynthia White, plus a second one drawn by a police artist following her instructions, show no taxi, though they do show, in front of Cook’s VW, the extraneous detail of a Ford sedan that played no role at all in the case. No other witness at the trial except for White ever testified to having seen Chobert’s taxi. Furthermore, if Chobert had witnessed the shooting while sitting at the wheel of his cab behind Faulkner’s squad car, as he testified, his view of the shooting, which took place on the sidewalk on the driver’s side of the parked cars, would have been blocked by both Faulkner’s and Cook’s parked vehicles. Making his alleged view even more problematic, it was dark at the time, Faulkner’s tail lights were on, and his glare-producing dome lights were flashing brightly.

[1] Rd232 ^talk 15:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Prosecution case

I have made no edit but I want to propose a change in the wording of the section on the prosecution's case. It now reads "The shell casings and rifling characteristics of the weapon were consistent with bullet fragments taken from Faulkner's body." However, the coroner initially said the bullets were from a .44 and Abu-Jamal's gun was a .38. The coroner later said the bullets could have come from a .38. So I believe that sentence should be changed to make the weaker but technically accurate claim that "The shell casings and rifling characteristics of the weapon were not inconsistent with bullet fragments taken from Faulkner's body." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.210.51 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias

This article shows a bias to the idea that he should not be incarcerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.90.237 (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - there is too much "pro-Mumia" bias on this article. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I third this. I currently have no stance, but noticed that most of the article leans in his favor.Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to provide specific examples of where the article is not balanced. The only obvious thing that I see is that the last paragraph is one-sided. The others present one side and then the other, which is the way it should be. DrKay (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this article shows much Bias at all. I was a member of the Black Panther Party before and after Mumia,s alleged membership,Most of us have long known that Mumia has enhanced the level of his involvement in the Party. But the fact of his trial being unfair is well documented.Oldpanther 16:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

come on

"The chain of events started with Faulkner stopping a moving vehicle near the southeast corner of the intersection of South 13th Street and Locust Street in downtown Philadelphia. The United States Court of Appeals, in ruling against Abu-Jamal in 2008, described the killing of Officer Faulkner thus:

On December 9, 1981, between three thirty and four o'clock in the morning, Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner made a traffic stop of a Volkswagen driven by William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother, on Locust Street between 12th and 13th Streets, in Philadelphia. Officer Faulkner radioed for backup assistance, and both men exited their vehicles. A struggle ensued, and Officer Faulkner tried to secure Cook's hands behind his back. At that moment, Abu-Jamal, who was in a parking lot on the opposite side of the street, ran toward Officer Faulkner and Cook. As he approached, Abu-Jamal shot Officer Faulkner in the back. As Officer Faulkner fell to the ground, he was able to turn around, reach for his own firearm, and fire at Abu-Jamal, striking him in the chest. Abu-Jamal, now standing over Officer Faulkner, fired four shots at close range. One shot struck Officer Faulkner between the eyes and entered his brain.[3"

THAT is on Daniel Faulkner's page. Why is it not on this one? Jersey John (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Other editors would demand for it to be balanced with a paragraph from the defence saying he didn't shoot Faulkner. Tit-for-tat quotes are unlikely to enhance the article. DrKay (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with balance though. That is lifted from official court records, from the ruling that Abu-Jamal killed Faulkner, explaining just how it happened. When a the court makes a lawful ruling of someone's guilt and accepts the details as truth then, legally, that person DID do it and IS guilty. What's to balance? I understand your point, but do you see what I mean here? Jersey John (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try putting it in, how about inserting it into the Mumia Abu-Jamal#Federal appeal section, immediately after "...Judge Ambro dissenting on the Batson issue."? DrKay (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why no murder details?

I note that we have extensive sections on which bands have written songs about Mumia, but no description AT ALL of the way he sat on Officer Faulkner's chest and fire multiple rounds into Faulkner's face at point-blank range. Can someone explain why the former is considered "Wiki-Worthy", while the latter is not?

Also, I can't help but wonder why this article in particular gets a "this is not discussion forum" tag. Especially in light of the fact that the Tab that gets you here is marked "discussion". It would appear that whatever Moderator is in charge of this section has his head so firmly up Wesley Cook's ass that they both get their teeth brushed at the same time. This isn't a matter of being "Pro Mumia" or "Anti Mumia". It's a matter of wondering why Wikipedia is allowing this particular article to be used as a Propaganda Tool. Issues that are actually relevant to the case, such as a DESCRIPTION OF THE MURDER are being purposely omitted, while irrelevant nonsense like "A band played on Letterman and chanted Free Mumia" is given bandwidth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.107.125 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the "this is not a discussion forum" tag is unfairly applied here; most other controversial articles usually have them, or they're applied when enough people have started posting about the subject and not the article. If you want to add details of the murder, you can, if you can source it, as this is a wiki, and there are be bold rules and stuff. If it's really as you say, I'd advise you to add the details yourself (I don't know much about the subject at hand). Also note that the article links to a more detailed description of the case (though it's a little hard to find...).

±µŒ ¤₦€ ₮ł-łË \/ʉ₦฿ʉ£§ ₣ÆÅ₩ ( _₮ / _©) 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I came to this page to gain a better understanding of the court case and left with absolutely nothing in the regard. Could someone with more experience editing wiki pages please clear this up & add more details? A case that generates as much public out cry as this deserves a clear & detailed summary. I'd do it myself if i knew anything about it, or could edit wiki pages with any success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.113.143 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree the article is bad. I too came here to read facts about his case to build my own opinion. Pop artists have already done enough to distort public opinion without the need for wiki doing the same. 80.189.249.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

Maybe the reason there is no sensational depiction of how Abu-Jamal "sat on Officer Faulkner's chest" is because he never did, and no credible witness ever said that he did? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Name

As a complete aside, the actual Mumia after whom he is named was not really an anti-colonialism crusader, as he seems to believe: he was in fact a collaborator with the British - see Rise And Fall Of Mumia. RantingMrP (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the picture shows pro-Mumia bias. Couldn't they use a picture that isn't a publicity photo? One that isn't reminiscint of Roots? Strong, black man in chains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.80.134 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the photo does not show pro-Abu-Jamal bias, and indeed portrays him in too much of an unflattering way (wearing handcuffs, which are representative of criminality). The problem with this is, apart from headshots, the only photos that show Abu-Jamal without some sort of indicator of imprisonment or arrest, are from a long time ago (i.e., before his conviction). These early photos show a very young-looking Abu-Jamal, sporting an afro, and do not represent an accurate depiction of his current appearance. I see no reason what was wrong with the headshot that previously appeared in the article, but there might have been copyright problems. By the way, it is not a "publicity photo" and there is no Wikipedia rule against using publicity shots on biographies. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Career

Why is there almost no information about his journalism career in the lede, or about his commentaries? He's known for more than being a convicted murderer and being on death row. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the fact that he is a convicted murderer supersedes his less-than-noteworthy attempts at journalism or commentaries. Why do I get the feeling you just want to venerate him? Jersey John (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be supportive of Abu-Jamal's release from prison, or at least granting him a new trial. The article's lede ought to reflect the most significant things in Abu-Jamal's life, and one of those include being an award-winning journalist. This biography is not intended to be a shrine, whitewashing his murder conviction away with platitudes, but more of a broader scope would be appreciated.96.26.213.146 (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"I happen to be supportive of Abu-Jamal's release from prison, or at least granting him a new trial." No wonder. Jersey John (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead should reflect the body text (WP:LEAD). There's only one sentence in the lead about his career, and it could probably have marginally more. In particular, being President of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists seems perhaps worth mentioning, as it gives some sense of really having been active as a journalist and not just someone who dabbled. So I've added that. Rd232 ^talk 03:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally I was looking into the fairly common meme of Mumia having a Peabody Award, but a Google Books search of The Framing of Mumia Abu-Jamal By J. Patrick O'Connor turns up nothing, and that has some detail about his career; so I think that's wrong. (I had also checked the Peabody site, which turned up nothing, but it could have been under a different name or something.) Rd232 ^talk 03:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is going to shit. Seems we got some new contributers who think Mumia is innocent trying to interject their bias. Jersey John (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC) ("Framing" of Mumia indeed...)

Your Assumption of Good Faith is noted. Do you disagree with my assumption that if a book like that [which I came across by Googling] doesn't mention the Peabody, it must be a myth? Rd232 ^talk 22:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Just because the book doesn't mention something that you assume (and, rightly) I would say is crap does not vindicate the entire book. And how POV can you get anyway? "Framing" of Mumia? Seriously? Why can't you just admit that you have decided in your own mind Mumia is innocent or at the very least did not receive fair judication at all, and just say so? why the clever and subtle POV pushing? You can deny it all you want it's obvious. You may have your status as an administrator to stand on, but that empty title does not magically void you of any fallibility. You're pushing POV in this article. You want readers to end up feeling some sort of sympathy or admiration. The correct sense of the article should be neither sympathy/admiration nor hate/condemnation. It should simply be an accounting of what is verifiable, and should not be worded in such a way as to entice one to, in very basic speach, say "Aww... Poor Mumia. So intelligent, so troubled..." Please. I know what kind of person you are. I live in the Deleware Valley. We've been hearing folks like you get in a huff off and on since the incident itself. Jersey John (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what chip you've got on your shoulder, but I'm really not interested (I don't know whether Mumia is actually innocent, though in British terms his conviction would surely be called "unsafe"). The answer to my question was "yes", you agree. Thank you. Rd232 ^talk 23:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not he thinks Abu-Jamal is innocent is irrelevant. Adding verifiable and relevant information to any article is to be encouraged. Keeping a biographical completely focussed on one aspect of the person's life simply because it's the most well-known aspect is pointless, and, Jersey John, doing so with as much vitriol as you are is simply disgraceful. Adding information about Abu-Jamal's journalism in no way corresponds to declaring him innocent, it simply deepens the amount of information in the article. For the record, I neither know nor care about the case in question, I simply have this article in my watchlist because of Jello Biafra's association with him. GRAPPLE X 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Rd232, for doing something about the glaring paucity of career information in the lede. I too dispute that he ever received a Peabody Award, and indeed never even heard this highly dubious claim (is there a stated year?). Jersey John, this isn't expressing "sympathy" or a POV; much of what is in O'Connor's book (which does, admittedly, have an opinion and argues for Abu-Jamal's release) is verifiable material; despite the bias of the source, valuable content, such as the information about his journalistic profession, can be gleaned from it (I read it myself in 2008). To cite it for that purpose is not "admiration", it is stating the facts, namely that he was a journalist before he was convicted of murder, and won an award for it. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

From memory from the recent Googling, the more specific versions of the meme said the award was for coverage of John Paul II's 1979 visit to the US. It was partly that specificity which made me surprised that it seems to be untrue. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning Chobert's criminal record

This is irrelevant. It was irrelevant in the court case as well. All criminal records of all witnesses in all cases are irrelevant. This is a fact of the criminal justice system in the United States. Suspects "cut a deal" with the prosecution in a vast majority of cases in the United States and incriminate others in the process, thus closing open cases. This happens every day. It's not surprising, new, revelatory, or indicative of anything in any way. It wasn't a decision making factor in the case and shouldn't be in the Wikipedia entry. Putting this information in the entry is an indication of bias in favor of Abu-Jamal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.12.236 (talk) 09:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Police "severed" wires of Abu-Jamal's prison radio broadcast.

The source doesn't work. The website may have been discontinued. Does anyone else have a source for this information? If not, this part of the article needs to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.12.209 (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this goes for anything sourced from source #26. It's used repeatedly throughout the article, but the link is dead. If anyone could help re-source the information linked to source #26, I'm sure it'd be appreciated. I'll contribute to this work when I get some more free time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.12.209 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an article in Black Issues Book Review, which was a hard-copy source. I don't see it's any different from using a book, like Mrs Faukner's. DrKay (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Then either the link itself needs to be taken out, or the following source needs to be linked in it's place...http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Mumia%27s+voice%3A+confined+to+Pennsylvania%27s+death+row,+Mumia+Abu-Jamal...-a0121572304.....

Also, this source needs to be analyzed for accuracy and POV. I just read it and saw some fairly glaring discrepancies with regards to (for instance) the murder case's official transcript.223.25.12.209 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Free Mumia.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Free Mumia.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

2010 ballistics/sidewalk info

It is irrelevant. See "pirate population/global temperatures" analogy, which I believe is on the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" Wikipedia entry.

Just because someone went out and shot a sidewalk one day in 2010 doesn't mean it has relevant bearing on a case 20+ years ago. Of course the sidewalk looked different; the bullets didn't hit the sidewalk, they hit Faulkner. When those same investigative journalists and experts conduct a test in which the bullets hit a human being, then their test will be valid. As of now, it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.14.123 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

These pictures are not new, and they were taken after the murder by journalist and photographer Pedro P. Polakoff. Thus, the photographs date back to almost 30 years ago. Additionally, there were several shots fired, and every one of them didn't hit Faulkner. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The others may have hit the car though. DrKay (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the sidewalk crime scene photos, I'm talking about the 2010 investigative journalist results as compared to the crime scene photos.

The test they conducted has no relevance to the case. They shot a sidewalk as opposed to a human being. The source says so. Additionally, I saw no information in the source that states that the ballistics expert that was hired knew he would be commenting on a story that would involve Abu-Jamal. From what I read, the source only stated that the ballistic expert was given photos of the crime scene (not knowing what crime scene it was), examined the 2010 test, and made a comment saying that something different would've had to happen to get the two different results. Of course something different happened; in one case, someone got shot. I'm not even going into the fact that, if all the bullets had in fact hit the sidewalk, as is freely assumed in the 2010 test, then the rifling characteristics (the rifling characteristics on the rounds pulled out of Faulkner matched the Abu-Jamal's weapon perfectly, which was a major factor in the jury's verdict) on all the bullets would've been too messed up to pin to Abu-Jamal's weapon as they did. Again, the source didn't go into this. Due to this, the source itself should've been reviewed for bias (Quite frankly, if I was the writer's boss, I'd have fired him for being so bias, yet calling himself a "journalist.").

I repeat: Until they shoot a human being, and the rounds hit and are stopped by soft tissue as opposed to concrete (thus preserving rifling characteristics), the 2010 test is irrelevant. To continue to include this test, despite the facts, is a clear indication of bias in favor of Abu-Jamal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.25.12.209 (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

All of which is clearly WP:OR, and not a valid reason for excluding the 2010 tests. If you can provide a WP:RS criticising the tests, that can be added. PS I think your premise is wrong - the source in question says 4 bullets were fired at close range and only one hit the victim, so 3 bullets should have hit the sidewalk (or possibly somewhere else, but AFAIK there doesn't seem evidence of that). Rd232 ^talk 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Source #26

I mentioned this earlier, but it seems to have been ignored so far. Source #26, and the information that has been placed in the article as a result of it, needs to be analyzed for accuracy and POV. I reviewed the source a few days ago and there are some glaring contradictions to the official court transcript (among many other things).

With regards to this, I'll be making changes to the article as necessary when I get some more free time. In the meantime, if someone would like to go through the article and the source and remove the inaccuracies/bias, that'd be great.223.25.13.211 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Provided it meets WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, a source can be biased and still be used. The point isn't to find only 100% neutral sources, but to combine sources to create a neutral end result. Granted, I haven't reviewed the source, but those policies are the ones to bear in mind when doing so. GRAPPLE X 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What you've got (perhaps, I haven't checked either) is two reliable sources that contradict each other. At wikipedia we present both viewpoints, or a middle ground, not either one. You've already removed quite alot of sourced, reliable "pro-Mumia" material. If you remove much more, you'll have gone too far the other way. In fact, you may have already done so. I think you should be cautious in removing more. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, unless you work for Wikipedia in some sort of paid capacity, you have no more of a right to speak for them as I do. Secondly, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, that means it's supposed to contain facts. Thirdly, facts are stubborn things, and if a source, whether it's pro- or anti-Mumia, is stating a fact wrong (as I've stated) or making an outright false claim, it and the claim gets scrutiny.

Feel free to tell me, and everyone else reading this, what changes I've made to the article and why they're not justified with regards to the facts. Also, tell me how source #26 is "reliable" with regards to the veracity of the information it's contributed to the article (I'm VERY interesting in hearing this one...As I've fully read the source and seen what it's contributing to the article, I don't have to say "perhaps"....It's a crap source and obviously POV, plain and simple.). And by the way, I hope you're not somehow trying to imply that I'm being biased. Your previous comment could actually suggest that you in fact are (supporting something else over facts...really?).

I repeat: When I get some time, I will be reviewing and making the necessary changes with regards to this source. Since I'm only correcting factual statements in the article, I don't need your advice with regards to caution. Thank you in advance for keeping it to yourself in the future. If you want to review pro-Faulkner sources, feel free.223.25.11.144 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And other editors will be monitoring such changes for adherence to fundamental Wikipedia policies such as WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Rostz (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is actually all the more reason to scrutinize source #26. Additionally, that's what I've been encouraging everyone to do with respect to this source: check it and edit accordingly if you have time. Thank you for agreeing with me. It clearly falls under WP:QS for not checking facts (this source contradicts the official case transcript) and much of the article violates WP:NPOV for numerous reasons (not using a reliable source being one, as stated above). Like I said, feel free to review the article all you want. It needs it, and I encourage it. Thanks again for agreeing with me.223.25.14.223 (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The photo of Tom Ridge

Not really sure why a photo of Tom Ridge is relevant here, particularly one of him long after his tenure as Pennsylvania governor. His involvement in the Mumia Abu Jamal case is minimal. 67.206.157.10 (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

So you get redirected here from a link on Mumia in the list of Bog Bodies page, I don't think this page has anything to do with the grinding up of a mummified bog body in 1791 125.237.1.117 (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: corrected to Mummia. DrKay (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-punctuated sentence in "Verdict and Sentence" section

Hi, everyone! I had a question about the quote in the "Verdict and Sentencing" section. Hopefully, this will be the easiest question for you to answer today. The quotation reads as follows (this is a snippet from the quote):

"Who does he truly represent or work for? ... I am innocent of these charges that I have been charged of and convicted of and despite the connivance of Sabo, McGill and Jackson to deny me my so-called rights to represent myself, to assistance of my choice, to personally select a jury who is totally of my peers, to cross-examine witnesses, and to make both opening and closing arguments. I am still innocent of these charges."

Does anyone know if this quote was written or spoken? Albeit possibly wrongly, I assumed it to have been spoken. If, indeed, it was a spoken quote, the punctuation needs to be edited, Of course, it still needs editing, but we can't do anything, since we're not allowed to spell-check a quote. Having assumed the quote was spoken, I changed the period before the last sentence (after "opening and closing arguments"). This period was a comma beforehand, but, without a connecting word like "and" or "so," the language in the sentence is incorrect. The only way to fix it without adding words was to change the punctuation to a period, which I did. However, of course, if this is a quotation of a written document, my edit must and should be reverted. One last thing needs to be fixed if this is a quotation of something written. The ellipses after the first sentence is out of place. There needn't be any punctuation there, unless this is an exclusionary ellipses - that is, the ellipses is used to indicate some word or words that have been left out from the original quote. Barring this, there is no reason for the marks. If the quotation derives from a written work, please revert my change, and ignore this message. If not, please heed my suggestions. Thanks, and cheers! "Yes...It's Raining" 20:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's as written in the transcript. The full sentence reads "[D]espite the connivance of Sabo, McGill and Jackson to deny me my so-called rights to represent myself, to assistance of my choice, to personally select a jury who is totally of my peers, to cross-examine witnesses, and to make both opening and closing arguments, I am still innocent of these charges." This sentence is joined to another one with a preceding "and". DrKay (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Reworded lede

I checked dozens of articles in the "American prisoners sentenced to death" category and none includes race in the lede, so I removed it from this one. This helps simplify the first sentence of the lede and removes (what I feel is) WP:UNDUE attention to his race. Rostz (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Racism was certainly a factor in the case, though you may not know it. Whether it was significant enough to put in the lede of Abu-Jamal's biography is debatable, but it is sufficiently important to mention in the article. Albert Sabo, the trial judge in his case, was a racist and reportedly said of Abu-Jamal, "I am going to help them fry the nigger". 96.26.213.146 (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok Mr. IP address, why don't you take a hike and stop pushing your agenda? You're too transparent to be taken seriously. Jersey John (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Hey watchlisters, I just stumbled upon this article and something that struck me was the first sentence in the lead. Usually our BLPs have the format "[person] is/was a CEO/activist/politician/etc who is/was know/n for [X]. The sentence in this articles strikes me as odd as it doesn't ascribe any sort of descriptive role to the subject. I don't know much about this case/person so I don't really have any suggestions, but perhaps someone more creative than me can come up with something. N^oformation ^Talk 08:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

WP:BLPPRIMARY prohibits citations to court documents in articles about living persons. This article cites to many court documents, and many of those citations are not an "augmentation" of something cited to in a secondary source, but the only source for the material. An editor just reworded the "Arrest for murder and trial" section, based I assume on the editor's interpretation of a court transcript, which is the only cited source for the first paragraph. The second paragraph suffers from the same problem.

The article cannot be left this way. I've tagged the article to give editors a chance to cite to secondary sources. However, if none is forthcoming, I will start deleting material that is cited only to court documents. BLPPRIMARY is not a guideline; it is a policy, and it must be adhered to.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY also says: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

There's a huge secondary literature here, and most of it cites court documents. It would certainly be a difficult job to read all the secondary sources to confirm that none of them cite a particular primary source. --Nbauman (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Death Penalty Dropped

Just a clean up question. Does this need to be in the article twice? The information is 3rd paragraph of the introduction at the top, and later again in a section titled the same, and they say the exact same thing. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The introduction (or lead) is meant to summarise the whole article, and so everything in it will be repeated elsewhere in the article. Given that this is a new addition of material it's been added to both sections at once, and hasn't yet been through the organic process of drifting into a different wording through successive edits that much of the site's content does. Give it a few days and it'll not be so exact in its repetition, but the repetition of the actual facts are intentional and correct. GRAPPLE X 20:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Broken link to Amnesty International report, in References

· In the References, ref. #5 starting: '"A Life in the Balance: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal". Amnesty International. February 17, 2000'

- provides a broken web.archive.org link.

· This one works (as at 2011-12-09, NZDT): http://web.archive.org/web/20081201103126/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/001/2000

· However, I cannot access References to fix it myself. davd (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC) David (davd)

 Done Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Weirdly prescient...as I was thinking the same thing

I just read a news article that led me to Nixon's Enemies List which led me to the actor Paul Newman. It said he was an activist who supported Mumia Abu-Jamal. So I come here. But reading the article makes it no clearer to me, as a European, as to why so many people thought this was a gross miscarriage of justice?

As a neutral reader I have not been able to establish just how the crime created such a fuss. Particularly as the shooting is just explained in a few very bland statements. I don't see, as the rebuttal details are separate, where it all became an attempt to incriminate an innocent man? Abu-Jamal is at the scene, wounded, five spent shell casings from his gun, wearing a holster near to a dead cop that has his bullets in him.

I think this article is failing because its attempt at neutrality are curtailed by its authors "NOT" having a neutral POV as they are presenting the case with presumptive attitudes. The narrative just seems to make leaps without explaining the exposition. For instance, the doubts to guilt are not explicitly expressed only listed as to what they are.

As I noted above, Abu-Jamal was there at the scene with the gun that shot the officer. So why is there no clear and simple steps to explain why so many people think he is innocent? Was another person caught? Did Abu-Jamal lose the gun and then it turn up at the crime scene? Was everybody who was a witness just lying? TBH and it's because I am not a legal person, I thought all the rebuttal to the procedural stuff was trying to suggest there was no actual evidence exonerating Abu-Jamal as the shooter; therefore his legal defence has been discredit all the incriminating evidence? If that is right then? This article needs to written as per WP:SPADE.

It is not difficult this article just needs to make these points clearer as it would sure help a lot, because quite frankly I think article is unjustified in its present form and is more a platform (as per WP:SOAP) for people with an issue over the sentence than actually the promulgation of information. 109.149.209.214 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking help with another article that stirs controversy

In general, I find the tone of discussion in this article to be civil and attempting to be balanced. I am trying to add information to the article of Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican nationalist convicted of Sedition, use of force in armed robbery and other crimes. He was convicted as part of a conspiracy involving over a dozen other nationalist members of the FALN, some of whome were convicted of bombings that killed and maimed individuals. But the article read, when I arrived, as if this was a clean cut case of a political prisoner inappropriately jailed for his beliefs. I am conscious that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, but that does not mean we can not reach a balanced discussion of the facts.

But enough of an introduction: my question is how can wikipedia arrive on a way to mediate better these articles. I sense they have done a reasonable job here, how can that be expanded to something like Oscar Lopez Rivera, who has become the Mumia for the cause of Puerto Rican independence.Any help would be appreciated.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Broken link for Guilty And Framed

The "courttv" link is now a link to their rebranding materials.

I found a copy of what I think is the same article:

http://stuarttaylorjr.com/content/guilty-and-framed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiseebs (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't see significant discussion about why he is controversial

Most people know about Mumia Abu Jamal because the supporters of him are very vocal. This article explains why he may be guilty, and it does so from a seemingly neutral standpoint. It doesn't seem to explain why he is considered innocent by so many. I read this article and feel like I understand why he may be considered guilty, I don't understand why he may be considered innocent. I've seen other featured articles that seem to have a suttle bias. Honestly I'm probably for that bias, but I would really like to know WHY Copenhagen has made him an honorary citizen, rather than simply that it has. Flizvoz (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I just read the article and came to the same conclusion. I have no idea from the text why some people think he is innocent. Surely there must be more than what is presented here?Nojamus (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty well spelled out: accusations of racism, and of a police conspiracy to frame him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard almost no one in Philadelphia considers him innocent. I don't even think he claims he innocent. That's not to say one has to be innocent to get an unfair trail. But his trial seemed rather ordinary, except that I think he defended himself-always a bad idea, lawyers will say. The case of Copenhagen honoring him, I think, is a result of rumor and conspiracy mongering.

The people in Europe hear rumors passed on by supporters which are many fold removed from the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:E842:6A5A:974C:D01A (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

does the introductory section give enough weight to the controversy surrounding Mumia's case?

Hey Wikipedians. I'd like to put out the idea that the introductory section to this article gives a somewhat inappropriate equal-weight summary of the two 'sides' of the controversy surrounding Mumia (said controversy being central to his noteworthiness, and thus inclusion in Wikipedia). As is demonstrated further along in the article, i.e. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal#Popular_support_and_opposition Mumia is noteworthy not for his detractors (which are listed in the article as including the police, those who prosecuted him and the family of the victim...as these are rather obvious detractors, they hardly merit designation as some kind of substantive 'opposition' imho) but for his supporters. I think the paragraph beginning 'Supporters and opponents disagreed on the death penalty' would be more informative to the reader if it reflected this, perhaps indicating the noteworthiness of his supporters (e.g. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch), instead of implying something that isn't backed up later on. 174.91.143.35 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult reading through the first few sections to see what the controversy could be: there appears to be no case for the defence and enough evidence for a prosecution. If there is more to the case than this, (ie. if, in fact, there is a case for the defence), then I agree it needs to be highlighted earlier on in the article. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. Pro-Mumia support relies on accusations of racism on the part of the judge & jury, and accusations that the police framed Mumia because of his political activism. It's difficult to find reliable sources that go into more detail than that, as is the nature of conspiracy theories. There's more detail in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal on the inconsistencies in various witness' testimony & questions about the evidence. It's more complicated than can really fit in the article about him, so it's better covered in the article on the trial. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Today is the first day I have heard of Mumia Abu Jamal. I had hoped to understand why there is so much support for him. Unfortunately, after reading this article, I came away with the impression that the evidence was simply against him and that he was rightfully imprisoned. There is scant information as to why there is seemingly so much popular support and opposition. Are the accusations of racism of merit? If so, I can believe that as it happens all the time. However, I get the impression that the race matters were addressed during subsequent appeals and he had nothing to stand on. I say all this simply to agree with the above wikipedians and say that I am truly confused as to why people are backing Abu-Jamal. Racism alone won't generate the amount of support this man seems to have and I would like this article to better articulate that. – BAKURA (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree, I came to this article for the same reason, and there seems to be no summary or discussion at all about why he is considered innocent by so many? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.162.192 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There isn't much discussion of why he may be innocent because there is absolutely no evidence that he is. What is in the article is all there is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.32.75 (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The evidence of his quilt is overwhelming and the final court decision was to question only the sentencing instructions given by Judge SABO as flawed. At his trial, Mumia was his own worst enemy by his behavior which resulted in his removal from the proceedings. Little wonder a jury, with 2 black jurors, took only 3 hours to return with a death sentence. Some of his supporters are not convinced of his innocence but are in his camp due to many reason including their general opposition to capital punishment. Mike Ferral, actor and life-long opponent of capital punishment, writes to ABC's 20/20, "I don't, personally, hold Mumia Abu-Jamal as a hero. I don't know the man. He is obviously very intelligent and very articulate, and he just as obviously holds views that do not endear him to the establishment. Nor do they make him a character with whom the general public is likely to easily find sympathy." Jogershok (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

References

WP:BRD

Ok, so my "B" was "R"'d; now I'm here to "D". I changed the sentence "the events that led to his incarceration" to "he murdered Daniel Faulkner". This was reverted, with the summary "this won't do". May I ask, "Why?". His murdering Faulkner was what led to his incarceration. Why must we dance around the direct facts? Joefromrandb (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This was added once before recently by an IP, and I reverted it. I tried to find a date to avoid the issue, but, unfortunately, the full text of the article is not online, so I have no idea when it happened. In the context of explaining his personal life, it seems wrong - and is certainly jarring - to use the phrase "he murdered Dankiel Faulkner", and it was a judgment call on my part to remove it. The current less aggressive text is perfectly accurate (assuming the source says what it's supposed to), so I don't see why we need to change it. It would really help to know the date as "shortly before" is ambiguous.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the IP that previously added it is no longer editing the article, perhaps WP:3O would be helpful. I realize you find it "jarring". I, however, find it unencyclopedic to to use what seems to amount to little more than euphasim. As it now seems to be only the two of us disagreeing about this, perhaps other editors will weigh in here. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the efforts of User:DrKay, it looks like our problem has been solved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I too am troubled with the "when gunfire broke out, injuring Abu-Jamal and killing Faulkner." edit. Jogershok (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The opening sentence that Mumia "is an American prisoner convicted for the December 1981 murder..." seems ambiguous and misleading to me. Other convicted murderers of note are not described in their articles as "American prisoners" or have the more passive language of "convicted for". There does not appear to be any factual evidence to suggest a wrongful conviction, so I prefer the language that I had proposed, Mumia "was convicted of the December 1981 capital murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. After being convicted of murder he was sentenced to death on July 3, 1982. That sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment without parole in December 2011." That seems more direct and factual to me than, Mumia "is an American prisoner convicted for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner. His original sentence of death, handed down at his trial in July 1982, was commuted to life imprisonment without parole in December 2011." Also, it is not factually correct that the sentencing was done at his trial. The trial determined guilt or innocence and then the sentencing determined the sentence. I do not want to simply revert back without some discussion here first. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I added "by Mumia Abu-Jamal" in the sentence "Officer Faulkner was shot dead by Mumia Abu-Jamal in Philadelphia while he was conducting a traffic stop on Abu-Jamal's brother, William Cook." I think that it clarifies who is who in the original crime. I also prefer to leave in the documented fact that "Abu-Jamal was seen running towards the officer and his brother." This establishes how Mumia arrived at a scene where the officer was killed without getting in to too much detail about his cab or the nature of the red light district neighborhood, etc. These edits can be made in the opening paragraphs and still maintain the 5 paragraph rule.

Lastly, I think that I agree with other comments about the WP rule, Calling a Spade a Spade. The article lacks the information about the organizations that existed at the time that were actively working to bring anarchy and undermine the elected government (under the guise of liberalism). We don't have enough information in the article about the subversive activities of the organization MOVE that worked from the evening of Mumia's arrest to discredit all prosecutorial efforts around Mumia's case because he was considered a brother in the MOVE organization. Understanding the motivations and activities of MOVE and other organizations would help people understand why a controversy was manufactured (in this case - but certainly not all cases) in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead is phrased in that way so as not to choose one side of the debate over the other: i.e. not choosing the side that he is a murderer over the side that he is a political prisoner. Your draft states without qualification that Abu-Jamal shot Faulkner, but the other side would argue that he did not. For myself, I dislike the repetition of "convicted of murder" in one sentence after the other. We've already been told he was convicted of murder, so we don't need to be told it again in the very next sentence. DrKay (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing I agree with is repeating "convicted murder" is repetitious. I think that I would settle for "After being convicted he was..." I do not think that there is any substantive evidence as to innocence anywhere. There was a lot of support for Mumia around the objection to a death penalty. Many of his celebrity "supporters" have stated when questioned that they objected to the death penalty but had no opinion on whether or not Mumia was guilty of the crime. So if there is any real debate it would be a death penalty debate, not guilt vs innocence debate. I have no interest in Mumia Pro/Con, but I can't find anything that can credibly suggest that he is innocent. I hope that you address my other concerns/questions as well. Also, I'd like to have a third party weigh-in here to help move us along. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 21:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

So I think that the language on the opening paragraph in my draft, "He was sentenced to death on July 3, 1982. His sentence was later commuted to life in prison on December 2011." is more direct and encyclopedic than "His original death sentence, handed down after his trial in July 1982, was commuted to life in prison on December 2011". My objection to your version is: 1. There was only ever one death sentence. So saying that it was "His original death sentence..." is inaccurate and misleading. 2. "handed down after his trial" is passive and begs the questions "who" handed down this sentence, and was there someone else involved other than the jury and judge? The edit I propose is more direct, provides additional information, is non-judgmental, and conveys the same meaning in the same number of words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Leaving out why the Activists et al had a concern confuses readers who are not familiar with that time in history or this case. I like the edit that you made about fairness of the trial, but I think that we have to introduce the concept of racism here to accurately set up why there is a controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BRD does not mean that you revert after coming to the talk page. It means you wait for consensus before restoring the new material. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is critical Wiki policy. Ref sites that have gathered facts pro/con Mumia's guilt are acceptable

Hi Helpsome, FOP can be considered a reliable source - same as with justice.danielfaulkner.com, the Feminist Wire, and/or Mumia's own books. They may all disagree about the fairness of the trial or capital punishment and having differing POV's, but as long as they're being used to source factual information that is written in a NPOV manner then they are appropriate for Wikipedia. Please stop removing/altering sources that are critical of Mumia's guilt, e.g. the FOP ref and the article "D.A.: Abu-Jamal can go rot in cell" from Philly.com. Wcmcdade (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an incredibly biased source and you are slipping it in where there are already two references. It isn't needed because there is no new information being added. Helpsome (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What information from this source is biased?Wcmcdade (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? The link opens with "Danny Faulkner was the kind of young man every father and mother wants for a son, every child wants for a brother and every person wants for a friend." as if this was a verifiable statement of objective truth. For an article to open with this statement, everything that follows shows a clear conflict of interest which makes it an unreliable source. Helpsome (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer over at Third Opinion, the request made there for a 3O has been removed because there has not been sufficient discussion of this matter before seeking assistance. All forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require a thorough discussion before asking for help. I won't say more than this, but neither the question of whether a source is biased nor the fact that a source is being used to "source factual information that is written in a NPOV manner" determines whether or not a source is a reliable source. The actual standard is set out here. Consider the reliable sources noticeboard for advice, but not dispute resolution, concerning reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources are not neutral, links do not work

A personal blog is not a neutral and reliable source, even if it lists sources that supposedly are. Also, several of the links are not working, such as the transcript ones. Please replace all such links with acceptable/working ones.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADREF, dead links are not removed solely because they are dead. The academic sources fulfil the criteria at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please show me where a personal blog is regarded as a reliable and neutral source, otherwise I will revert the edits.Thank you.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)