Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal

Death Penalty Dropped

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

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

Broken link to Amnesty International report, in References

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

- provides a broken web.archive.org link.

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

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

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

WP:BRD

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't see significant discussion about why he is controversial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seeking help with another article that stirs controversy

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

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