Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal







Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal





Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Featured article 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.
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 of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated FA-Class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Flag of Pennsylvania.svg 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.
 FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
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.
WikiProject Biography (Rated FA-Class)
WikiProject icon
P vip.svg 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.
 FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Philadelphia (Rated FA-Class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
Libertybell alone small.jpg 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.
 FA  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, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
Newspaper nicu buculei 01.svg 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.
 FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
Diamond-caution.svg 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.
Unbalanced scales.svg Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
Peace dove.svg 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 comments may 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 60 days are archived by MiszaBot.
Crystal Clear app file-manager.png This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections with no replies in 60 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.


Contents

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.

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...).
±µÅ’ ¤â‚¦â‚¬ ₮ł-Å‚í‹ \/ʉ₦฿ʉ£§ â‚£í†í…â‚© ( â‚® / ©) 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)


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

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)

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

Removing SPJ references

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

Obama pardon

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

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

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

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

Removal of line that is POV and not fact

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

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

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

The statement as it stands:

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

I believe it should read:

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

That would omit key information. DrKiernan (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That information is in fact supposition posited by the prosecution and refuted by the defence as per the bolded testimony above. The statement as it stands: 'Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed: his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test.' I believe it should read: 'However tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed.' PadraigT (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Given the testimony quoted above by PadraigT, would 'Tests to confirm that Abu-Jamal had handled and fired the weapon were not performed; the prosecution asserted that his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test.' be acceptable to the two of you?- --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

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

I appreciate these suggestions. A problem for me in his struggle with arresting police at the scene would have compromised the forensic value of any such test is also the word struggle. Witness Dessie Hightower (pages 130-131 and and pages 162-165 of the following webpage of testimony http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/6-28-82.html#tumosa) states under both examination and cross-examination that the defendant was beaten and kicked by between 3 and 5 of 8-9 arresting officers (the remainder looking on, according to his testimony) prior to the defendant being placed in the police van (and this after the defendant having been shot in the right chest by a 0.38 caliber gun at a range of 12 inches or less - on this both sides agree) - so this word 'struggle' is problematic. Given that, then what is being argued as compromising the value of the test(s) is a series of hypothetical, disputed events. In the original testimony (http://www.justice4danielfaulkner.com/Days/6-26-82.html#tumosa) all that's testified to by the prosecution's own witness Dr Tumosa is that the result of handling tests in general can be diminished over time and with activity, and then the prosecution posits a few loosely stated hypothetical events, and asks whether all taken together would in theory compromise the value of the firing test. The actual occurance of the events is not established. I think the whole area of testing and struggle is generally a problematic area to make a short and indicting statement about, which is why I think it might be best to remove that second half of the sentence. PadraigT (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it needs to be said that the test is unreliable after time and contact. Otherwise, there's no explanation of why the test wasn't done, which leaves the reader in the dark. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal


  WikiTude Home

  Celebrity Directory
  Celebrity Pictures
  Celebrity Desktop
  Celebrity Screensavers
  Celebrity Wallpapers
  Celebrity Music Videos
  Song Lyrics
  Celebrity News
  Celebrity Bios
  Celebrity Posters
  Celebrity Movies
  Celebrity Music
  Celebrity Books
  Celebrity Videos
  Latest Celebrity Photos
  Celebrity Candids
  Celebrity Unofficial
  Celebrity Pics
  Celebrity Feet Pics
  Celebrity Video Clips
  Celebrity Articles
  Celebrity Blogs
  Celebrity eBay
  Celebrity Gossip
  Celebrity Photos
  Celebrity YouTube
  Video Celebrity News

  Contact Celebrities
  Celebrity Games
  Celebrity Popularity
  Celebrity
  Celebrity Websites

  Music
  Movies
  Web Portal
  POPped NEWS
  Books
  Games
  Flash Games
  Mortgages
  News Blog
  Quotes
  Travel
  TV Listings
  Tools & Gadgets
  Web Owner Tools







Privacy Policy