Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Discussion about posts on Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

In response to user DrKiernan's post on "Summary of dispute by DrKiernann", the request for dispute resolution is not "premature". For many months, user DrKiernan has been arbitrarily reverting all edits that do not meet his/her POV. This ongoing dispute needs to be resolved by neutral third parties who have the authority to revert said user's biased edits.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead and edit carefully as I am now monitoring the situation. Use the talk page for piece by piece changes. But do not delete wholesale text. Try to first balance the lead by adding critical info, and then discuss point by point deletion. Use tagging for disputes, like blogs as citations. Some of those blogs were horrendous. --Inayity (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate venue to discuss editors or to launch personal attacks against them. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the edit that got my attention. academic sources ? So I think we should all start a fresh and allow improvements to go forward. The lead is not BAD, it just lacks some diversity of content. The way some sentences are slung together are questionable. Why would info about his bad performance in court be in the lede but his hon citizenship not? So it is an issue.--Inayity (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not following you. Christopher Phelps and Oxford University Press are clearly reliable sources and pretending that they are unacceptable is ridiculous. DrKiernan (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

COnfirm this page I hope you can follow my point now. DId you not add this back into the article?--Inayity (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That website is written by Abu-Jamal and Todd Burroughs, who is a lecturer at Morgan State University and wrote the entry on Abu-Jamal for the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present, and the website is published by a third party: Kim Pearson, who is chair of African American Studies at the College of New Jersey. DrKiernan (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you cleared that up because It really looks not so RS from first glance. --Inayity (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Just glancing but this sentence is not Lead material.

He attempted to represent himself at his 1982 trial but was repeatedly reprimanded for disruptive behavior and given a court-appointed lawyer.- This is not a summary this is body information which should not be in the lead. This should be moved or summarized. And funny thing with all this trial focus, the lede neglects some of the most notable stuff about him (just like the Malcolm X lead which is controlled by revisionist. Him in popular culture and him as an icon in some circles for racial injustice. None of that got to the lead despite being a considerable part of the body. --Inayity (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a summary of at least three sentences in the article body. I see no reason to remove it from the lead. "1982" could go since it is given in the first sentence, but I believe it was introduced at the request of another editor who thought we should disambiguate between the 1982 trial and the subsequent hearings and appeals. DrKiernan (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede does not summarize the entire article. It's that simple. The lede is nothing more than an agenda being pushed forth by a biased editor.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is it biased? DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "biased" are the limited details that you have arbitrarily chosen to include in the lede while eschewing a legitimate summary of the article as a whole.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the lead. It's a community effort. DrKiernan (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter who wrote the lede, it still violates Wiki's policies for the reasons that I have previously mentioned.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with the Phili Editor because makes no difference who wrote it, and community effort or not, it is a community effort (what we are doing right now) to fix it. And it needs work. It is slanted towards one aspect of Mumia, the trial. heavily on the trial. I mentioned this before and some fixes were made. A lot of text is dedicated to the trial. None towards how I know Mumia in activist circles. So it does have a slant. --Inayity (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to the comment "you have arbitrarily chosen" by pointing out that I have not done so. It was PhiladelphiaInjustice who placed the emphasis on identifying who wrote what. DrKiernan (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are arbitrary by default of reverting my and others' neutral edits.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How are your edits "neutral" with an edit summary like this? Helpsome (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The referenced edit summary did not give my POV, only that of those reported about. I am neutral on the article; as evidence thereof, I have deleted biased sources from both sides, such as freemumia.com and justicefordanielfaulkner.com.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ballistic test" source dubious?

Dave Lindorff and Linn Washington are not scientists but "investigative journalists" supervised by "A Penn State history professor knowledgeable about firearms and ballistics", which has the self-elevating conformation bias ring of Jesse Ventura's "demolition expertise" lending him authority on 9/11.

Even if it is notable from it's reportage, shouldn't the paragraph reflect that it is basically random people firing randomly into a piece of concrete and proclaiming with shock that marks were made and therefore all variables of the event are now deduced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.135.121.159 (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. There are other entries which clearly reflect a given editor's POV. Please keep your eyes on this entire article and be on the lookout for posts from biased contributors from both sides of the fence. This is a supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article, not a soapbox for those with an axe to grind.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is being cited to Counterpunch, a leftist political magazine that describes itself as "muckraking with a radical attitude". It's highly questionable as a source for contentious factual claims about a comrade-in-arms. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing from the lead

All of this kind of content is missing from the lead. Too much weight on one and two areas only. He is a symbol around the world for prisoners of conscience. That has to be in the lead. Labor unions,politicians,[5] advocates,[107] educators,[108] the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund,[26] and human rights advocacy organizations such as Human Rights Watch[109] and Amnesty International have expressed concern about the impartiality of the trial of Abu-Jamal,[3] though Amnesty International neither takes a position on the guilt or innocence of Abu-Jamal nor classifies him as a political prisoner.--Inayity (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's already covered by "Activists, celebrities, and political organizations criticized the perceived lack of fairness of his trial, or opposed his death sentence," which is balanced by "The Faulkner family, public authorities, and police organizations maintained that he was properly convicted and appropriately sentenced." DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is the key word Political Prisoner?--Inayity (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If he is considered a political prisoner, then yes, it should be in the article. The problem is that currently the article text reads that Amnesty International does not classify him as a political prisoner. The only work/person in the article that calls him a prisoner of conscience is Abu-Jamal's own Death Blossoms. I think "He has described himself as a prisoner of conscience" or similar would be fine, based on the current content. But if "Some view him as a political prisoner" stays in the lead, then the "some" needs to be defined and expanded upon in the article body, sourced to reliable third-party sources. DrKiernan (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede inappropriately includes intricate details that do not belong in any lede and are already stated in lower sections. Missing from the lede is a true summary of key parts of the article. User DrKiernan has been editing based on his/her POV.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are well aware of the policy against personal attacks and that article talk pages are not appropriate venues for discussing editors.[1] Please remove all previous comments relating to contributors and desist from your harassment. DrKiernan (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I edit based on my Point of View, since it is all I have. So it is not bad for a person to have a POV. and our collective POV along with Wiki policy make the articles better. But it is best to discuss the article and not the editor for better engagement.--Inayity (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)--Inayity (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected; I meant to say that another user is NOT editing with a NEUTRAL POV: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I will not again mention other editors on this page. I admit that I am relatively new to contributing and have not memorized the hundreds of pages about Wiki's policies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I asked before: where is the article bias or non-neutral? There was no pertinent response. DrKiernan (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A look at your editing history suggests that you seem to be more interested in getting your way than in neutrally editing this article, regardless of the political slant (if any) of a given entry. For instance, refer to your reversion of my definition links for "activist" and "journalist" in the lede. I suspect that a high percentage of those who click the Mumia Abu-Jamal article may be from the inner city and thus not particularly well educated, and may need to know the definitions. Many of the problems have been alleviated thanks to my and others' edits, such as the prior use of "justicefordanielfaulkner.com" and other non-neutral websites as sources which had been added under your intense watch.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop attacking me. DrKiernan (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@PhiladelphiaInjustice Just a few days ago you said you will stop. And he reverted you for the right reasons per WP:OVERLINK It was the correct reversion. Until you get a hang of things, just discuss the article. --Inayity (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Said user has attacked me, but I will try to comply with your request. I disagree about linking the two words in question where WP:OVERLINK would normally apply (for the reason stated). Nonetheless, I will abide by your request.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

and Amnesty International have expressed concern about the impartiality of the trial of Abu-Jamal,[2] though Amnesty International neither takes a position on the guilt or innocence of Abu-Jamal nor classifies him as a political prisoner.[2] And I will add Democracy now "MOst famous political prisoner" I mean the one thing this man is known for is being a political prisoner!--Inayity (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Abu-Jamal was convicted in 1982 of killing of a Philadelphia police officer, but has long maintained his innocence and is one of the world’s most famous political prisoners.- Democracy now.--Inayity (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As opposed to pointless edit war over stupidness this is where the discussion is happening. Not on my Talk Page. Here right now. To pick over this kind of stuff makes the above complaint carry some validity. I have reverted it!!!!!! You must edit war it for what? Must everything be a victory to you?--Inayity (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I already explained my mistake on your talk page. Please remove the post above this and stop your harassment. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC) 09:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Refuse to engage the above remark. Democracy now says it, I think it is far from a controversial statement. But it is controversial when the issue has been raided by two editors about a slant to then remove it, not ONCE, but TWICE. --Inayity (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Both Amnesty and Democracy Now and the words political prisoner are in the article. You are mistaken and your hatred and distrust is misplaced. DrKiernan (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) 09:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss the article, discuss Mumia, Discuss political prisoner, but please, oh please do not tell me about distrust and hatred why not just add antisemitic or Islamophobic for good measure?. And please (if you may) do not put words not spoken in my mouth, if this is the path you plan to take, do not engage me. Esp after I was the one above trying to defend you (the cheek). --Inayity (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I posted on the talk page 5 days ago and waited for a response - none came. I then tagged for citation and still no response came. I then removed it - ONCE. Check the edit history, and you will see that I am right. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty International is regarded as an authority as to who's a political prisoner and who's not. Democracy Now! is not, it's just a far-left advocacy platform and calling Abu-Jamal a "political prisoner" is just an advocacy technique. Removed from lead as poorly sourced contentious claim though there are other policy justifications for removing this. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion but please do not push it against the discussion going on here and delete consensus edits or edits born from discussion. Discuss before further edits which are controversial and current a source of dispute. --Inayity (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Who agreed with your edits so far? So why are you going against Wiki Policy and over riding the discussion process with rationale and misuse of policy based on your own WP:IDONTLIKEIT to force changes outside of the Talk? Democracy now's opinion is notable enough. Take it up with RS if you claim it is poorly sourced. Either way you dont just delete stuff you have tags for disputed things. --Inayity (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody except you has made a statement in support of this inclusion based on this sourcing. Amnesty International is the world's foremost authority on political prisoner status. They don't think he's a political prisoner. Democracy Now is not an authority on this subject; it's a leftist platform making this claim for advocacy purposes. That's very different from a serious designation by a serious authority. This probably does not belong in the article at all, and definitely doesn't belong in the lead. Do you have any arguments in support of this inclusion? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please show me when did you start getting involved in the discussion you are now commenting on? I will embarrass you and ask you WHO WROTE THE BLOODY THING? That you deleted? Go and find out and get back to me. The talk page long before you started disrupting the page is the argument, if you ever decide to read it. --Inayity (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss the actual appropriateness of this prose and sourcing per WP policy, and your claims that it is supported by consensus are belied by this very talk page section. Please justify the material on its merits. If you hadn't been so busy angrily attacking DrKiernan you might have noticed that he already noted that the "Democracy Now!" claim is contradicted by Amnesty International, and he suggested that we instead have the WP prose say Abu Jamal describes himself as a political prisoner. And even there, he appears to have been mainly concerned with placating you, a consideration that's not actually supposed to guide the writing of WP articles.

If nothing else, it's clear you need to tone down your rhetoric here or there can't be any productive discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead's inclusion of tedious details already included in lower sections and the use of non-neutral sources have ruined this article. Can we at least establish what sources are acceptable for this uniquely dividing issue? I vote no for Democracy Now, Amnesty International, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News because they are too slanted. I likewise say nay to freemumia.com, justicefordanielfaulkner, and all other personal blogs and websites that any member of the public can set up. Please consider using only major, relatively neutral media sources, such as philly.com, USA Today, and the like. I have already edited the lead into two short, declarative, summary paragraphs but DrKiernan reverted the edit without giving specific reasons, just general, sweeping excuses. I am beginning to wonder if DrKiernan has more than one username.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Without hearing more, I'm not comfortable on a blanket prohibition of Amnesty International for the BLP of a person who claims to be a political prisoner, nor do I think that would be supported by policy. Also, material self-published by Abu-Jamal may be used as a source for claims he makes about himself, but probably ought to be given explicit textual attribution. That said, I generally agree with the proposition that we should take special care to use sourcing that's well inside the mainstream. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"25 cities around the world"

Thus far the only source clearly shown to substantiate this claim is L'Humanite, a communist propaganda rag. I don't think there's any way this is RS for this factual claim, and a brief effort at finding a better source yielded only a passing mention in a book devoted to unrelated murders committed by white people. I don't really doubt it's true, but a claim like this needs strong sourcing, IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted a Google books source from the "Encyclopedia of African American History".--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

"Political prisoner" and "honorary citizen" in lede

We currently state 'Democracy Now! considers him "one of the world's most famous political prisoners".', sourced to an authorless newsblog. I do not think that promoting this source and viewpoint in the lede is compliant with WP:WEIGHT.

Similarly, we state "He has been made an honorary citizen of about 25 cities around the world, including Copenhagen, Montreal, Palermo, and Paris." An interesting bit of trivia, but not really an essential piece of information to include in the lede section. Per WP:LEDE: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." I propose removing both of these sentences from the lede. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have already proposed removing all details (which already appear in lower sections) from the lead, which is supposed to be a brief one to four paragraph summary of the article's contents.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the lead to make it more closely adhere to Wiki policies. Hopefully, another user not again revert it.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Democracy Now is still quoted on the lede. Are you saying you agree with removing it? Reversion is a normal part of the editing process; chill out. VQuakr (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Reversion is indeed "a normal part of the editing process", but the referenced user had reverted ALL of my edits, even the syntax fixes which any third grade grammar student would agree were appropriate. It is said user who needed to "chill out", which he/she has since done because I have (in the past few days) restructured the entire lead without interference. Feel free to make additional logical edits; I am not on an ego trip. I just want the lead to be presentable and adhere to Wiki's policies.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I do not want to remove the Democracy Now line due to the controversy, so I added the Rush Limbaugh quote to balance it. If you remove one, please remove the other. In my opinion, neither quote belongs in the lead.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, since there are no objections I will go ahead and remove both sentences from the lede. They remain in the article body. VQuakr (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Democracy Now! tidbit was never in the body of the article to begin with — one of the reasons I removed it from the lead, actually — so now it's gone entirely. I'm not adding it though, because I think Democracy Now! has no authority whatsoever on the question and was basically just expressing a fringe view for polemic purposes. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PAUSE, On my talk page you just told me I was the only one who took issue with this thing. So who is now discussing it? Let us just clear up this so we can start afresh. My issue for weeks was stated above. Let us ask Factchecker to Fact Check WHO PUT IT THERE? Please tell me who put Democracy Now! in the lead? Was it me? My main interest is the term POLITICAL PRISONER. need to be in the lead, how it gets there I do not care!--Inayity (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Your caps lock key seems to be malfunctioning. Anyways, no one (should) care about who added the content; we are discussing the content itself. I cited WP:WEIGHT my opening post regarding whether the phrase "political prisoner" should be in the lede. Rather than start with the conclusion, what sources do you propose using that demonstrate that the opinion that the subject's imprisonment is political, is itself significant enough to merit mention in the lede? VQuakr (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede was a mess before my edits

Before again reverting anyone's edits of the lede, let us agree upon what should be contained therein. Certainly, biased websites (e.g., justicefordanielfaulkner.com or freemumia.com) should not be accepted as sources. As for the lede itself, it should compactly summarize the contents of the entire article in a short, declarative paragraph or two. This article is not so long that it needs five huge paragraphs that it repeats tediously detailed info contained in lower sections. Also, some of the grammar in the unedited version would shame any grade schooler. Thoughts?--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, as I said in more detail above. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

No it is not, for the reasons that I have noted above. I await input from other editors.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Since the article was granted featured article status (Feb 2008), the lead has about doubled in size while the article appears to have expanded about 20%. However expectations of articles at featured article candidates might have changed since that time also. Rmhermen (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede was NOT in its current sloppy form when said status was given The lede tediously repeats its second, third, and fourth paragraphs in a lower section. A summary of the ENTIRE article is needed, not just a repeat of a few limited paragraphs based on a contributor's POV. As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead:

"...a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway."

"...parts of the lede do not fairly summarize what's in the rest of the article, or summarize it in an unfair light, and that when fairly and properly summarized that the material is unnecessary and excessive, again carefully identifying the parts you're talking about and then carefully explaining why you feel that is the case."--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys do not let ego ruin our work here. The lede does have in issues. Meet 1/2 way do not blind revert people. Let us listen to the issues and deal with them. I have not followed everything but see an edit war going on. Our objective is to improve. And I think there is room for that here. I already complained about this lead a month or so ago, and some good changes were made.--Inayity (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

SOS! The lede is still far too long and delves into ridiculously intricate details that are repeated in lower sections.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

Would you be so kind as to make the edits yourself or get another expert to do it? I have already proposed an appropriate lede, but another user has repeatedly reverted it back to its current messy form.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the new lead meets your criteria of defining the topic, establishing context, explaining why the topic is notable, and summarizing the most important points, including any prominent controversies. Please share your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 15:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead you reverted gives a brief, declarative, four paragraph summary of the balance of the article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Your revision is extremely biased and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox for supporters nor detractors of convicted murderers (nor anyone else).--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

problematic intro

Hi, I find the first sentence in the Mumia article page to be problematic. His conviction was and continues to be heavily debated and the first sentence has a bias tone that suggests Mumia is a murderer. Or maybe it is that word "murderer." How does this sound?... Mumia Abu-Jamal was tried, convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, an incident that took place on December 9,1981. His sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment without parole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaime munoz1987 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is obviously a problem, thank you for bringing it up. I've changed the lead so that it now describes Abu-Jamal as a "political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder and sentenced..."

There is no controversy about whether Abu-Jamal was or remains a political activist, that he was a journalist prior to Faulkner's killing, and that he was convicted of murder. To simply declare that he is "a murderer" in the first sentence of the lead is obviously partisan: such a declaration relies not on WP:RS or WP:V but instead on WP:TRUTH. -Darouet (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Far from a featured article

I'm requesting that this article be listed as a former featured article. It has multiple problems, the most glaring of which was that until recently, 21/136 references were to a German language gambling site that does not mention Abu-Jamal. These references were meant to describe the prosecution and defense's cases, and intended to cite the trial transcript directly. Given the voluminous coverage of this case in high quality sources, such references to a primary document were and are unnecessary, and constitute original research. -Darouet (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Moved from WT:FAR Over 20 of the 136 references link to a German gambling website that does not mention Mumia Abu-Jamal. These references are meant to link to the transcript of the trial, and are used primarily in describing the prosecution's case in a positive light. Even if they were not sourcing claims to a gambling website they would constitute a serious breach of WP:OR.

Furthermore, a cursory review of literature shows that the presentation of the defense's case is woefully inadequate. For instance, this Boston Review article describes the Judge's hostile attitude towards the defense, and a series of witnesses intimidated by police. None of this appears in the article.

The article needs plenty of work; I would say it doesn't even meet "good article" status at present. -Darouet (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC) End moved section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

LEAD TOO LONG

I do not have to read this lead to know already it is far too long. So much details. Even Obama has a shorter lead (hyperbole). WP:LEAD--Inayity (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

They look similar lengths to me. DrKiernan (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyperbole. and even if it is, how is that possible? With someone with notability in a more narrow area. --Inayity (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Do me a favor and read the lead. You have reinserted the info but now read the entire lead from start to finish. I will not tell you what to look for because I want to make a point, hint, the point deals with excessive repetition not summary. --Inayity (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The lede needs a major makeover because it is indeed ridiculously long by any standards. A lede is supposed to encapsulate the article to follow in a short, declarative paragraph or two. Much of the info listed is too specific and already included in lower sections, where it belongs.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length, particularly a featured article, should have a lead of several paragraphs that summarizes the entire article. DrKiernan (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the lede should summarize the entire article, not delve into tedious, intricate details that are repeated in lower sections. The lede is a mess.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

An additional paragraph was added in the last few days. I have cut the lead as a whole down from 5 paragraphs and over 400 words to 4 paragraphs and just over 300 words, but retained all the new material. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead is still too detailed. It needs to be a short, two or three paragraph summary of what is to come, not an excuse for those with an axe to grind to highlight their favorite aspects of this controversial case.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede is confusing and long in relation to the subject of the article. The lede confuses readers who know nothing about the murder of Daniel Faulkner or the notoriety of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Independent third parties do not reasonably come to the determination that Mumia could be innocent after reviewing all of the relevant information regarding the investigation, trial, and appeals regarding Faulkner's murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The present lead gives a brief, declarative, four paragraph summary of the balance of the article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Your revision is extremely biased and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox for supporters nor detractors of convicted murderers nor anyone else.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me address your opinion that my revision of the lede "is extremely biased and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing".

The first sentence states: "Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook[1] April 24, 1954) murdered Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981." This statement is factually correct, supported by law, supported by appeal, referenced and is the general belief of the majority of people who have ever heard about the case. The sentence is not inflammatory nor does it contain any bias in regard to the case.

The next sentence says, "At Mumia’s trial, grass roots civil rights organizations including Philadelphia’s MOVE and the local Black Panther Party successfully brought attention to larger civil rights issues impacting African Americans – especially within the American criminal justice system and specifically the Philadelphia Police Department and court system." This sentence is factually accurate and begins to help the reader understand why a murderer would have the kind of notoriety and fame that Mumia has developed. This statement is also supported by reference from a major, respected, professional, journalistic source and begins to help the reader understand why there is controversy surrounding a murder case and a convicted murderer.

The last sentence, "The attention that Mumia and the civil rights activists garnered helped transform the murder trial, conviction and sentencing of Mumia Abu-Jamal from a straightforward murder case in to a national and international discussion on the civility of capital punishment, the fairness of the American criminal Justice system, and the racism and unfairness that African Americans experienced in everyday life in the United States during the latter half of the 20th Century to the present day." summarizes the controversy surrounding the Daniel Faulkner murder case and the reason that there is an article about Mumia Abu-Jamal. What bias or POV are you suggesting that I am holding and seeking to advocate for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcmcdade (talk • contribs) 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your inclusion of only liberal-slanted entries is what makes your lead version biased. Merely because an entry is sourced does not make it Wiki-worthy. For instance, I question the use of an editorial by self-proclaimed liberal Steve Lopez as a source for what is supposed to be an objective claim. I repeat, the present lead gives a brief, declarative, four paragraph summary of the balance of the article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Four relatively short paragraphs hardly qualifies as being "too long". Note that I have added to the lead that Mumia's supporters have professed his innocence. For balance, I was obligated to also add that his detractors are certain of his guilt.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion that calling Abu-Jamal a murderer "is factually correct" is POV. Being convicted doesn't make one a murderer and the bulk of the article deals with the fact that many people feel that Abu-Jamal isn't guilty so to put such a POV statement in the first sentence violates WP:BLP. Helpsome (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The current lede violates WP:BLP. Specifically it does not "avoid understatement" in the first sentence, Mumia "is an American activist and journalist who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner." It makes the subject sound as though he was some well known activist who was mistakenly convicted and sentenced for a crime - as though there is some doubt and an appeal may make things right. The plain truth of the matter is that the subject had no fame or notoriety until after he killed the police officer and turned his trial in to a referendum on the treatment of African Americans by the criminal justice system. So to begin the article with he "is an American activist and journalist who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1982 for the 1981 murder..." is extremely POV and violates WP:SPADE violates WP:BLP and violates WP:NPOV. The opening sentence that I offered neither understates or overstates the subject of the article, "Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook^[1] April 24, 1954) murdered Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.^[2]

Additionally as others completely unfamiliar with Mumia and this murder case have pointed out, casual readers with a critically acute mind often come to the article and are left with a sense of bewilderment as to why there is a controversy as to Mumia's guilt. The way that the current lede is written provides no help in clearing up the confusion or suggestiong why there is any controversy. Instead, the current lede just lists out various facts and opinions that can be found later in the article. the rest of the lede that I provided actually summarizes and provides a neutral description for why there is controversy in the first place,

"At Mumia’s trial, grass roots civil rights organizations including Philadelphia’s MOVE and the local Black Panther Party successfully brought attention to larger civil rights issues impacting African Americans – especially within the American criminal justice system and specifically the Philadelphia Police Department and court system.^[3] The attention that Mumia and the civil rights activists garnered helped transform the murder trial, conviction and sentencing of Mumia Abu-Jamal from a straightforward murder case in to a national and international discussion on the civility of capital punishment, the fairness of the American criminal Justice system, and the racism and unfairness that African Americans experienced in everyday life^[4] in the United States during the latter half of the 20th Century to the present day.^[5]"Wcmcdade (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You are reading things that are not there. Nothing about the current lead violates any Wiki policy. I suggest that you reread Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. You claim that "casual readers with a critically acute mind often come to the article and are left with a sense of bewilderment as to why there is a controversy as to Mumia's guilt." Perhaps that was your personal experience, but you do not speak for any other "casual readers" and you have not a shred of empirical evidence to support your suspicion. To debunk your theory, I suggest that you also reread the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph: "Activists, celebrities, and self-proclaimed liberal groups have criticized the perceived lack of fairness of Abu-Jamal's trial, professed his innocence, and opposed his death sentence. The Faulkner family, public authorities, police organizations, and self-described conservative groups have maintained that Abu-Jamal's trial was fair, his guilt undeniable, and his death sentence appropriate." I repeat, a lead is supposed to be a short, declarative, one to four paragraph summary of the balance of the article, which the current lead is. Note that the whole article cannot be encapsulated in the "first sentence", as you have suggested. Your additional contention that Abu-Jamal "had no fame or notoriety until after he killed the police officer" is completely false, as he had been both a radio reporter and newspaper columnist for several years prior. Also, using self-proclaimed liberal Steve Lopez's opinion piece as a basis for your lead material is about as one-sided and non-neutral as you can get. In addition, your allegation about the perceived possibility of an appeal is eliminated by the just-edited fourth sentence of the third paragraph: "After a succession of all possible appeals were exhausted...". Again, a lead summarizes an entire article; it is not supposed to reflect a lone slanted view.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Like this one? He was a little known radio show host. Again, portraying the guy as some kind of persecuted political agitator all the while he was a little known radio show host UNTIL he was on trial for murder is not NPOV, misleading and obviously biased. There is no notability without the murder trial. The wiki project is intended to be encyclopedic not biased sociological garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Smith, Laura (October 27, 2007). "'I spend my days preparing for life, not for death'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-01-22.
^ "Supreme Court lets Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction stand". CNN. April 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-06.
^ Lopez, Steve (July 23, 2000). "Wrong Guy, Good Cause". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2007-11-23.
^ "Execution Case Dropped Against Abu-Jamal". nytimes.com. NY Times. Retrieved 2015-03-31.
^ "Department of Justice targeting racism in local police forces". kdvr.com. KDVR. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://kdvr.com/2015/03/26/department-of-justice-targeting-racism-in-local-police-forces" ignored (help)

Mumia Abu Jamal is a convicted murderer who subsequently went on to become a notable political activist and journalist

Why does this article intend to portray it completely opposite to the encyclopedic facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141015132137/http://www.wcax.com/story/26681147/why-a-commencement-speaker-at-goddard-college-is-fueling-national-headlines to http://www.wcax.com/story/26681147/why-a-commencement-speaker-at-goddard-college-is-fueling-national-headlines

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Admin note

I have unprotected the article as discussion is now ongoing and seems fruitful. Please note that if I see anyone who should know better revert the article or make substantial changes to the lead section before the above discussion is completed, I will see that as bad-faith edit warring, and be issuing a quick block. Achieve consensus first before editing. Thank you. --Jayron 32 18:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-added semiprotection for two weeks pending the above. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So is the idea basically that it'll be kept in protected status with the politically favored intro until everyone arguing about it gets bored and leaves, and then it can be preserved that way forever? Because that's kind of what it looks like when the protection is slammed down only after the change is made. If you really want this to be a neutral discussion the article should be put back the way it was before the fight started. 2601:600:A280:4A6:A066:47CF:BEE9:6D5F (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It's often the case that POV pushers get their way through attrition and the effects of time. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to have seen how these things work and there's nothing one can do except do the right thing when the time is right, use the processes that are in place as they are intended to be used, and let it all play out. The current status of the lead is, of course, absurd on its face and should this drag on and on and on with no suitable resolution, that in and of itself will eventually make this episode worthy of mention in the serious media. If for nothing else, should this drag out, it can serve as a catalyst for debate about some of the dysfunctions within the encyclopedia and will hopefully be an impetus for change, and can also serve as yet another example and warning to our users on why they should tread carefully when relying on the soundness and veracity of politically charged articles. These are all good things. Marteau (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather Panglossian view of things. In reality, no news site is going to waste space on a minor internet slapfight over the details of an encyclopedia article, and even if they did, the serious media is on the side of the POV pushers; if you start having a genuinely effective debate about the dysfunctions within Wikipedia you will be banned from Wikipedia; and another example of why users shouldn't rely on the soundness of politically charged articles is no good if the users aren't aware that the article is politically charged and thus to be cautious of, which they won't be. 2601:600:A280:4A6:A066:47CF:BEE9:6D5F (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of other Wikipedia edit wars with political overtones has happened in the past as evidenced by this example (which is but one of many). Other media sources covered the Tyson edit war with diffs and calling out editors by name. I also fully expect books and other articles to be written in the near future pertaining to the problems Wikipedia experiences with POV pushers on political articles and with the resultant quality of the work, and this episode may serve as a prime example, especially considering the resulting thumbnail biography Google generates upon searching for the subject's name (as discussed above). This is not a trivial issue but an issue pertaining to the mainstream media and, of which Wikipedia is a member, and of how content on the internet which people depend on is generated. Marteau (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the first thing we see be convicted murderer

I think that BLP indicates that we should not include "convicted murderer" right at the beginning of the article. His notability isn't so much for the conviction as for the events surrounding it. I think describing it in the first paragraph is sufficient. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, when it was promoted to FA in 2008, the lede started Mumia Abu-Jamal(born Wesley Cook on April 24, 1954) was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It's doubtful that these other accomplishments would have even happened had it not been for his trial and conviction. THAT is what first got him past GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

blp say not to necessarily call him a murderer but he is a convicted murderer. And that is his claim to fame that makes him notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, this current lead is expanded moreso than the original, Mumia was convicted for the death..... This has more details on who Mumia is now, and should remain. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"convicted for the murder" is a bit more neutral than "convicted murderer". The latter says he is a murderer - something which is a matter of contention, the former simply states that he was convicted for the crime without necessarily implying that he is guilty. Nixon Now (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

He is a convicted murderer, that is what happens when you are convicted in a court of law. It's a clear cut factual statement. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Is "convicted for the murder of" inaccurate? Nixon Now (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

no, but that doesn't describe him, that described an action. The lead sentence sounds describe him, he's a convicted murderer, an activist and author. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

"Convicted of the murder of..." is a compromise. Nixon Now (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Except that doesn't describe him, it's an action. It also doesn't fit in with the rest of the sentence. He is a convicted murderer, same as people who are convicted felons. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The status quo wording including "convicted murderer" is preferable and compliant with WP:BLP. IMHO the first paragraph should focus more on the primary reason he is notable (the murder) than his pre-1981 activities. I don't really feel strongly enough about it to propose any actual changes, though. VQuakr (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason he is notable doesn't start and stop with his murder conviction. If that was all of it there probably wouldn't be an article. It's the effort and campaign to overturn the conviction that animates the bulk of his notability. Nixon Now (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If he wouldn't have killed that cop, there would not be a Wiki article about him. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Most people who have been convicted of killing police officers do not have Wikipedia articles, so it's more than that. Nixon Now (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a false argument. He killed a cop. The coverage of the trials, re-trials and celebrity apologists about his conviction for killing a cop is what made him notable. Most people who kill cops don't get all that misplaced sympathy. Only after that did anyone listen to his drivel on other matters. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's a false argument then disprove it by showing that the percentage of people convicted of murdering police officers that have Wikipedia articles as a result is substantial. You're allowing your feelings to govern your arguments. Nixon Now (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there substantial coverage of him prior to his killing Faulkner that would warrant him as notable without his murdering the cop? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:29, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, no one is proposing replacing the content of this article with only the two words "convicted murderer". I do agree that the post 1981 information conveys the bulk of his notability, which is why the first paragraph shouldn't be focused on journalism. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The article should be reverted, it is not fair that protection went in just when someone reverted me. BRD says we leave as is until consensus to do something different is achieved. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject was convicted and the conviction was upheld in multiple venues - subsequent lack of success of appeals only makes his conviction stronger. He is also primarily know for his conviction and multiple appeals - which we should mention in the first sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made a post at WP:BLPN, WP:BLPN#Mumia_Abu-Jamal. As I note there, as far as I can tell, this article has never attempted to label Abu-Jamal definitively as a murderer in Wikipedia's voice until now. I don't agree with the change and given the BLP concerns, and the status quo in the past, I don't think the change should be implemented unless there is clear consensus to do so. -Darouet (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Um, his conviction for murder has been in the first sentence of the article for ~10 years (though the phrasing seems to have been tightened sometime in 2017). VQuakr (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: There is a big difference between "...was convicted for the murder of..." and "... is a convicted murderer and...". That difference is recognized in the discussion above, where advocates of "is a convicted murderer" argue their case by stating that there is no doubt Abu-Jamal is guilty of the killing. The obvious objection, among others, is that there is doubt and that Wikipedia should not editorially conclude otherwise and declare its certainty to readers. -Darouet (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There is doubt that he was convicted of murder? VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr:, is your argument is that semantically, "Abu-Jamal is a convicted murderer" is no different from "Abu-Jamal was convicted for the murder of..." in terms of editorial presumption of guilt or innocence?

I know you're an intelligent person, so I'm a little incredulous that you don't notice the distinction. Others above are arguing that your preferred text, "is a convicted murderer", is appropriate because he really committed the murder. They're not trying to claim that "is a convicted murderer" only refers to the truth of the conviction, not the truth of Abu-Jamal having committed murder. -Darouet (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darouet: correct, I do not see any difference between those two phrasings - both connote the same thing to me: that the fact that he unequivocally has been convicted of murder. Now since, IMHO, they both mean the same thing I also do not have any strong preference between the phrasings. "Convicted murderer" is tighter wording, but that's not a big issue if you or others prefer "is a convicted murderer". However, I do strongly feel that we need some mention of the murder in the lead sentence, and both your proposed wording and the discussion here has been about removing all mention of the murder in the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: as SarekOfVulcan pointed out above, when this article was listed as an FA, it began, "Mumia Abu-Jamal(born Wesley Cook on April 24, 1954) was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of police officer Daniel Faulkner." I think the FA text is acceptable, but the "is a convicted murderer" text is not. -Darouet (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Methinks you and SarekOfVulcan should have proposed that edit, rather than the expurgation that you both actually attempted, but we can only change the future. Please !vote in the straw poll below. VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I see no one invoking one of the primary principles of the encylopedia, namely, that we use what reliable sources use. What I do see here is original research, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A google search of "Mumia Abu Jamal 'convicted murderer' yield many results from reliable sources using the phrase to refer to him.

Volokh, law professor

There are dozens more, and many many more from sources of lesser reliability, including a surprising number coming from very far left sources. And a Google Scholar search of the term as applied to Jamal returns seven pages of results... I have not vetted them but I am sure there are many which would be sufficient to support its usage in the encyclopedia.

I can understand an argument being made whether or not to use it in the first sentence. But any argument saying we should not refer to him as that at ALL is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Marteau (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Being the main thing he received coverage and attention for - it should be in the first sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you. I believe this article should be handled similarly to John Dupont which also has "convicted murderer" in the first sentence. So far, no editor has made an argument for exclusion of this phrase, here or in edit comments, that are based on policy or guideline but on what seems to be simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OR objections... objections which do not support the exclusion of the term in question at all. The term is widely used by reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the discussion at BLPN is telling us to go back to the talk page, can we pick one of these two discussions and continue it? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: can you propose an alternate wording that you would support? VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: How about:

Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook;^[1] April 24, 1954) is a prison inmate convicted for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, originally sentence to death in 1982 his sentence was commuted in 2011 to life imprisonment without parole.

I would describe his political/writing activities in the next sentence (during his incarceration....) , and in the succeeding sentence his pre-prison activities (Black nationalism, journalist). I'm fairly neutral on "convicted for" and "convicted murderer" (both are factually accurate - in my mind it is more about a noun vs. adjective).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Straw Poll

(non-admin closure) There is rough consensus to include the proposed wording. - Mr X 🖋 18:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we please get a quick support/oppose on the following wording for the first sentence, which I pulled from a December 2016 revision? VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal (born Wesley Cook;^[1] April 24, 1954) is a political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1982 for the 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner.

References

^ ^a ^b Smith, Laura (October 27, 2007). "'I spend my days preparing for life, not for death'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-01-22.

Support. VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose, because it duplicates info from two sentences later. If you want to rewrite the rest of the paragraph, though, I'd probably support the above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
+1 for Cullen's explanation below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Support Nixon Now (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
This is similar to text that was present when the article was promoted to FA status, and I would support it for now as a status quo to be returned to. I think we can later deliberate over further modifications. Thank you VQuakr for setting up the poll. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment this still puts his activism and journalism before his murderer status which is not why he's notable. He became more of an activist and journalist while in prison for the murder of Faulkner. I still think the first thing we need to say is that he's a convicted murderer, and then go on to other stuff, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- You're conflating cause with more important and effect with less important. Just because one thing led to another doesn't mean the first thing is the more notable. LBJ became President as a consequence of JFK's assassination but that doesn't mean his being VP under JFK or JFK being assassinated is the most important thing about LBJ - it doesn't even make the first paragraph of the Lyndon B. Johnson article. Nixon Now (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - we should make clear that said activism and journalism was mainly from death row and subsequently as an inmate. I would lead with convicted for murder, and then note hos activities from prison.Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. It looks to me like sources tend to talk about his activities more than his conviction, though of course they're inextricably linked. I can see the argument that we need to explain why he's in prison before everything that came afterwards, but I still think that policy suggests we focus on what the sources focus on, which is mostly his activism and journalism. I would strongly oppose any use of "convicted murderer", as some reliable sources do discuss his possible innocence, as illustrated in the article. All sources agree that he was "convicted for murder" but not that he is a "murderer". Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Woodroar: so why do you weakly oppose a wording that mentions journalism first and avoids the phrase "convicted murderer"? VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's a DUE issue: 4 vague words about his activities versus 20 very specific words about his conviction, when sources appear to care more about the activism and journalism. I'm sorry, I think I was distracted while writing that and I certainly could have been more clear. Woodroar (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Support When we say in Wikipedia's voice that he was convicted of the murder, we are stating a fact. When we call him a "convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice, we are asserting a disputed fact that he and his defense team have contested for decades. I do not consider that appropriate for a BLP. The distinction may seem minor but it is significant. If the rest of the opening paragraph needs a minor rewrite to eliminate redundancy, then so be it. We should be guided by the wording when the article was promoted to FA, unless there are strong reasons for major revisions to the lead paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. We normally list the reason a person became notable first. His notability stems from being a convicted murdered. Until he assassinated Daniel Faulkner, he was a non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Support per Cullen328 Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Support. If the claim hadn't been made that he was wrongly convicted, if there was no "Free Mumia" campaign, no one would know who he was. He's notable because he's a political activist who's imprisoned for murder (and was on death row). Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
SupportThe only thing I would suggest is avoiding the flip side of the coin. Avoid anything in Wikipedia voice that would imply that he is in fact innocent. Convicted of murder and convicted murderer are distinctive enough to make the change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

One who has been convicted of murder is a murderer. There is a judicial outcome that says he committed murder. In fact, there have been more than one of those, since there were retrials. The fact that we are tiptoeing around it is ridiculous. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

One who murders is a murderer. Johnny Frank Garrett is one of those cases where a person convicted of a murder isn't a murder. He was executed for but innocent of the crime in question. But that's a whole other conversation. Cullen offers a persuasive argument. Further this dance has few moves. It's more of a two step. Mentioning that he is convicted of murder does little to facially change the article and no one can in wikipedia voice imply that he is innocent.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. He is a convicted murderer. He HAS been convicted of it (more than once). If by some miracle he were exonerated, he'd no longer be convicted murderer. We're not even saying he is a murderer, but that he's a CONVICTED murderer. And this discussion is more than "convicted murderer vs convicted of murder", it's about how far down into the lead it's buried. If you had no knowledge of this case, you'd think he was some notable activist do-gooder who caught a murder charge. No, he is a murderer who used his platform to gain some fame for himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: most editors acknowledge the very significant distinction between "convicted murderer vs convicted of murder." The distinction being, as Cullen328 explained, "When we say in Wikipedia's voice that he was convicted of the murder, we are stating a fact. When we call him a "convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice, we are asserting a disputed fact that he and his defense team have contested for decades." This issue shouldn't be muddied through vague and incorrect editorial pronouncements that the statements are equivalent. They're not. -Darouet (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's get something else straight: Cook has been convicted more than once. The fact that he denies it is immaterial. Many convicts deny committing their crimes. We have multiple judicial verdicts saying he committed murder. Let's stop acting like this is some tabloid allegation or the result of some kangaroo court. And how do we justify burying this very important item that is truly the source of his notability so far down? If anything, at least push that to the top, since that's how he became notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

And interestingly enough the article will say that he is convicted of murder.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it will soft-pedal the fact that he's a convicted murderer and bury the fact that his path to notability was built on the assassination of Daniel Faulkner. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Except they can't do that. They can't say that he is innocent in wikipedia voice. They can't change the weight of the article to make it seem as if he's innocent. Actually the only thing that will be able to change that is if his current and following appeal is successful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

What? The current version DOES bury it. The proposed version makes the murder conviction look like an after-thought. You're so wrapped up in whose "voice" that you're missing the bigger picture. He was completely non-notable until he became a murderer. Everything else has sprung from that. We should lead with it before the parade of accolades that make him sound like some bystander. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Collapsing sarcasm and taunts. Take it to a talk page, boys

Well no it doesn't but since you are so confused at what "Wikipedia voice" is or it's importance then I'm not sure further discussion will be fruitful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not confused about it. (I'm also not confused by no vs know, but that's a different discussion). While you worried so much about "voice", you've completely ignored that point that the murder conviction should be the first thing listed, not as almost an after-thought. That's what you keep avoiding with all your attempts to sound authoritative about "voice". Niteshift36 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've heard that argument. I've just chosen to ignore it. It should be listed first because he was no one before he "assassinated" the cop.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I said you ignored it. Then you try to correct me by saying you ignored it. No kidding? Glad we agree on the fact you are ignoring the actual point. Love the scare quotes around assassinated. Since Cook was a radical political activist who came up behind a police officer and shot him in the head, assassinated fits pretty well. Sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delicate sensibilities? Yes, sure, you being blatant bias just tears up my little heart. But pardon my fragility. But thanks for further clarifying your own personal bias. It is assuredly helpful. Good day little buddy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

::::::*You seem to have the mistaken belief that we can't have an opinion. Merely having a personal opinion doesn't necessarily create a bias. If I were actually trying to introduce the term into the article, you'd have grounds to discuss a bias. Right now, we're just discussing where in the lead his murder conviction actually belongs, a conviction we both agree belongs in the article. I'm sorry you're having difficulty keeping up. I'll slow it down for you sunshine. Wouldn't want you to feel excluded. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Support This is basically how we now describe Abu-Jamal: "Activist. Journalist. Black Nationalist. Supporter of MOVE. Member of the Black panther Party. Radio Reporter. President of an association. Oh yeah, and he took a murder rap." It would be laugh-out-loud laughable if it were not so cluelessly amateurish and embarrassing to the encyclopedia. This will at least move his status up to the first sentence, where it belongs, and I support it. Marteau (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I have re-considered and have struck out my previous !vote. He is, in fact, a convicted murderer according to multiple reliable sources including the New York Times and legal scholar Eugene Volokh.
Oppose we should list him being a convicted murderer first. All else is secondary to his notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment the current version of this article is Wikipedia actively promoting fake news. If you google Mumia Abu Jamal right now Google’s search returns Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American political activist and journalist who became involved in black nationalism in the 1970s. This is not at all why this person is notable. The article needs to include his conviction for murder in the opener as per the status when this article was promoted to Featured. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

A "Duck Duck Go" search does the same. Here's what Duck Duck Go returns on searching "Mumia Abu-Jamal" Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American political activist and journalist who became involved in black nationalism in the 1970s. He is a supporter of the MOVE Organization, and was also a member of the Black Panther Party until October 1970 but left the party and became a radio reporter, eventually becoming president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists.More at Wikipedia And with any editor who changes the lead being threatened with a block until "consensus" is achieved, it could remain this way for months or longer. That the article was locked down in the middle of an edit war on this version is completely embarrassing and was completely avoidable with just a little forethought. That any editor, much less an administrator, can think it's acceptable to have mention his being convicted of killing a cop occur only after his tenure as "president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists" is astonishing. Marteau (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose His primary notability stems from his conviction for murder. What he has done since his conviction is "aftermath", for which a neutral perspective would not call for his journalism & activism to be noted in the opening paragraph. His journalism and activation should be in the closing paragraph of the "lead" section. Vwanweb (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support The idea that Mumia is first and foremost notable for being a convicted murderer is simply wrong. Leaving aside the question of his guilt, he's notable because enough people saw him as a political prisoner and that's why his case has received so much attention. If everyone had agreed from the beginning that his arrest and trial had been fair, he would have been executed in the 90s without anyone outside Philadelphia ever learning his name. -- irn (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean the arrest and multiple trials that ended in multiple convictions for.....wait for it... murdering Daniel Faulkner? Agin, it all stems from that single ~~cowardly~~ criminal action. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are you being so rude and aggressive? You've made the same point repeatedly in this thread, and you didn't even respond to the crux of my argument: If everyone had agreed from the beginning that his arrest and trial had been fair, he would have been executed in the 90s without anyone outside Philadelphia ever learning his name. -- irn (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out the obvious isn't rude. (Don't you just love when people link you to stuff you know darn well that they've read?) The so-called crux of your argument doesn't even address that actual point I made. Whether we say "convicted murderer" or "convicted of murder", it still goes in the front of the list. THAT is where the notability springs from. Your hypothetical argument actually reinforces that. And "everyone" rarely agrees with a trail. Thousands and thousands of people plead not guilty every year. The jury disagrees and they go to jail. A handful get attention. Cop-killers often being part of that handful. But it all still starts with his murder conviction and that should be up front. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of sock/meat puppetry? And, of course, pointing out the obvious isn't rude. What's rude was your style of argumentation: a sarcastic rhetorical question with gratuitous snark thrown in the middle.

The problem with your "springs from" line of argumentation is that simply being convicted of murdering a police officer wouldn't have been enough on its own. Not every person who has been convicted of killing a police officer since 1981 is notable enough for their own article. There were other factors that were also necessary, and it's the combination of these factors that make him notable. Also, just because one thing is identified as some sort of originating point for notability doesn't mean that it has to go first in the description. The Donald Trump article is an obvious example. -- irn (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Where on earth do you see a sock puppet allegation? Your "problem" with the 'springs from' line isn't accurate. Nobody claimed that every cop killer is notable. But that 'combination of factors" never happens without the murder conviction. Nice try with the Trump bio. If Cook ever gets elected President, I'll change my position on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose He's famous for murdering someone, everything else stems from that. He wouldn't have an article without his murder. 50.201.228.202 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Support In my opinion without citing any Wikipedia policy, the main issue is that search engines like to index things, give us little tidbits of facts so that we can get a brief sentence overview of a person we search for without any of the supporting details. In most cases, it's exactly what we're looking for--for semi known/niche people, all people need is a simple sentence to tell who that person is. In this case, because some Wikipedia editor decided to rearrange things, perhaps in a chronological order or in supporting order, it messed things up. Citing Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME states we shouldn't include any information has committed a crime without a conviction, a standard that this article has met the threshold for. Therefore, I do not believe that stating he was convicted for murder violates any WP:BLP concern, even looking at some of the RS where he has claimed innocence. I also note that it is strange that an administrator has required that there be consensus for such an edit to the lead, given WP:BRD is an essay that states when there is a stalemate, sometimes a bold edit is just what is needed. But of course it can be abused, and maybe caution could be advised. I also agree with other editors in noting that if not for the conviction for murder, the person may not have met notability standards at all, and being convicted is what primarily led him to become an activist. So even if we weren't trying to do it to appease some multinational corporation's need to have things concise in a search engine, it's important to have it in the lead sentence for context purposes. I hope this resolves itself quickly. Tutelary (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Support and refer to "gun homicide of Daniel Faulkner" instead of "murder of Daniel Faulkner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.62.188 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)— 124.171.62.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As there has been no activity on this straw poll for 13 days, and as it seems to me that consensus is not obvious, I have requested a closer for this at the Requests for Closure notice board. Marteau (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Mumia2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: HORRIBLE WRITING

Wikipedia has got to make it's submissions back their writing with footnotes. History can't be written by just opinion. FACTS, FACTS, FACTS. FROM ALL SIDES. Piece isn't even authored. And that's the fingerprint of a coward and a liar. Payne, Travis L B G (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This article has over 100 footnotes, listed at Mumia_Abu-Jamal#References.

The authors are available by clicking the "History" tab at the top of the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

pictures: everyone but him?

This article contains pictures of several people... Except Mumia Abu Jamal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.61.86.118 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Looked into this. There were photos of Mumia Abu-Jamal in this article and elsewhere on Wikipedia, but they wre scrubbed due to copyright issues. I'm currently working with people in Philadelphia to get some images of Mumia back on Wikimedia Commons. Anyone who own photo rights to such image, please contact me. Morganfitzp (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair use photograph instead of a mural, for NPOV

The infobox image is a mural clearly by a supporter of his, reading "Remember, we are in here for you. You are out there for us." This is very much a non-NPOV image, and is a negative for the article. The image should instead be replaced with a fair use one, of which there are many good ones. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Hello DemonDays64. Wikipedia policy on images is clear. We cannot use a fair use image of a living person. We can only use images of living people that are freely licensed or in the public domain. The restrictions on use of non-free images are stringent and this is not one of the ten acceptable exceptions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: oh…did not realize there was that rule. DemonDays64 (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

It is not necessary to balance each statement in the article with an opposing view, but no-one in this discussion agrees with the recent removal of a sentence from the lead (The Faulkner family, public authorities, police organizations, and other groups believe that Abu-Jamal's trial was fair, his guilt undeniable, and his death sentence appropriate.), and it has therefore been reinstated. DrKay (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some people think he's a drug user who shot a policeman at point-blank range in the face. Other people think he's a campaigner against injustice. Wikipedia does not choose between these opposing views. Every statement calling him a murderous drug user needs to be balanced with an opposing view, and vice versa. DrKay (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Fringe views should be given less coverage than the mainstream view (as per court rulings). We also don't want to create false balance in the article on Evolution by introducing Young Earth Creationists' views.--Potugin (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

These aren't fringe views. DrKay (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need a equal number of anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BALANCE and other sections of that policy for guidance. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Especially where it says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". We can't ignore the fact that had he never assassinated Daniel Faulkner, it is pretty unlikely that anyone outside of his neighborhood would have ever heard of him. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Hence it is not appropriate to remove the parts of the lead that talk about the Faulkner family and police organisations (and state and federal courts) that say he is guilty in order to create a paragraph that only says organisations "have claimed that he is innocent". That is why I have put that content back and that is why I've come to the talk page for the support of editors like yourself who are not happy about such material being removed. DrKay (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Every statement calling him a murderous drug user needs to be balanced with an opposing view, and vice versa. No, see WP:FALSEBALANCE. VQuakr (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine, as I'm clearly in the minority, you may remove all the material from the lead about his guilt and him being a murderous drug user. I'll stay off this article in future as (Redacted) no amount of sensible opposition from people like myself who think it's wrong to shoot wounded law enforcers in the face is going to change that. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Buh-bye. You will find yourself in the minority frequently if your goal is to give equal validity to all viewpoints. That is not considered "neutral" under our policy or practice. VQuakr (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

My goal is not give equal validity to all viewpoints, as you would know if you'd bothered to check or even made an effort to understand. It was to balance the claim that he is an innocent political prisoner with the court verdicts that he is a cop-killer. DrKay (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I quoted you in italics so you could see exactly what I was identifying as incorrect. VQuakr (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not false balance since the number of sources that support him do not supersede the number that convict him. Calling him a murderer is not a fringe view. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Calling him a murderer is not a fringe view." No one said it was. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want my content retained, why are you arguing with its inclusion? Is it because you find the argument and the feud more interesting than the article content? DrKay (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"my content"!? Good lord. You didn't mention any article content in your OP; you posted a diatribe about equal validity that was plainly wrong, and were corrected by three other editors including myself. As near as I can tell, no one in this discussion wants the sentence removed - that is simply not the topic of the discussion you started. VQuakr (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

One thing that is true is that many of the sources are not really great sources. Amnesty International isn't the best source to be used and others seem to be advocacy and not RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I should have asked "Should the sentence The Faulkner family, public authorities, police organizations, and other groups believe that Abu-Jamal's trial was fair, his guilt undeniable, and his death sentence appropriate. be removed. But I didn't and so the discussion was off-topic and misunderstood from the start. (Redacted) DrKay (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV issues / appologia

political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder

He's a racist and a murderer who worked a shitty community radio station part time in college. That does not a journalist and political activist make. No one is like "Oh, the political activist!" Everyone knows this man SOLELY as a rabid racist and murderer. I know Wikipedia is pretty far gone, but seriously? 2001:8003:3631:7400:54A3:78BA:925:CED2 (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The description of Mumia seems accurate to me. He continues to be an activist and journalist.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

So not writing "murderer" is "appologia" and a "POV issue". Calling someone murderer and not write anything else about him doesn't sound like NPOV either.

[guardian-1] Smith, Laura (October 27, 2007). "'I spend my days preparing for life, not for death'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-01-22.

[2] "Supreme Court lets Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction stand". CNN. April 6, 2009. Retrieved 2009-04-06.

[3] Lopez, Steve (July 23, 2000). "Wrong Guy, Good Cause". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2007-11-23.

[4] "Execution Case Dropped Against Abu-Jamal". nytimes.com. NY Times. Retrieved 2015-03-31.

[5] "Department of Justice targeting racism in local police forces". kdvr.com. KDVR. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "http://kdvr.com/2015/03/26/department-of-justice-targeting-racism-in-local-police-forces" ignored (help)

[guardian-6] Smith, Laura (October 27, 2007). "'I spend my days preparing for life, not for death'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-01-22.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]