Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mumia Abu-Jamal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 1, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
September 3, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 8, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 22, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 4, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current Status: Featured article

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Pennsylvania

(Rated FA-Class)

Pennsylvania portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Biography

(Rated FA-Class)

Biography portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

WikiProject Philadelphia

(Rated FA-Class, High-importance)

Philadelphia portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Philadelphia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Journalism

(Rated FA-Class)

Journalism portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This is a controversial historical topic that may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Please also consider the particular importance of using proper citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This is not a forum for general discussion of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Mumia Abu-Jamal at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

Archives (Index)
1, 2, 3

Threads older than 30 days are archived by MiszaBot.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

1 Typo
2 Bias
3 Arrest for murder and trial Section
4 Why no murder details?
5 NPOV and editorializing
6 Popular Culture
7 Who Was In The Car?
8 Links to Court/Docket sheets.
9 His brother William Cook
10 Is there a smart truthful person ...

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.

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. DrKiernan (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)

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)

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...).

��Œ �₦€ ₮ł-ł� \/ʉ₦฿ʉ�� ₣��₩ ( _₮ / _�) 02:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This man is as innocent as OJ -Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.46.126 (talk) 12:50, 8 September 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." DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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. DrKiernan (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)

Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal