Talk:Assata Shakur/Archive 1

Bias
I am a New Jersey State Trooper candidate and am appalled at the clear bias exhibited in this article. Joanne Chesimard was convicted by a court in the United States of murdering a state trooper. The FBI has a one million dollar bounty on her head. And yet, this article portrays her as some kind of hero or icon. I am calling for a complete reformation of this article.

Please remember that Trooper Foerster was married and had a three year-old son. 70.15.55.54 14:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe that trooper should not have pulled over a car for simply having black passengers. The trooper was shot by "friendly-fire", according to most accounts. Hopefully New Jersey police have learned something from this, like how to lay off the racial profiling and not to do the FBI's dirty work. VinnyCee 06:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article neither portrays her as a hero or a villain, but rather follows Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality and biographies of living persons. Neutralities does not imply a legalist point of view or even a US point of view. If you feel that there is sourced information that is omitted from the article, please point us to it. I'd be happy to address any of your more specific comments. Savidan 17:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, we know that there were only two police officers at the scene, and both of them were gunned down, one fatally. Joanne either shot them or escaped with those who shot them.  She was outside of the car, and agreed to get into a car with people who kill cops (or was the killer herself, as eyewitnesses claimed).  How could she possibly not by an accomplice to a conspiracy to kill cops?  Everyone at that trial heard her threats against the judge and jury.  Everyone knows that her own behavior in court was the greatest evidence against her.  I'm just not seeing how it's POV to point out that she is, in fact, a villain.  I know the USA was quite screwed up and racist, and Joanne was a violent reaction to some horrible attitudes.  But she's still a killer or accomplice (which is the same thing, legally).  Joanne has never written an account that explains what happened that day.  Her lawyers tried to raise doubt, but if you read her autobiography she just leaves this highly important part of the story unsaid.  Why?  If your mission in life is black power, why not tell the story about how you were framed for murder?  She's guilty.  There's no possible explanation for how she got into that car to attempt to escape.  Also, why would a cop, who we know was being shot at, shoot this woman?  Why wouldn't he shoot the person shooting at him instead?  It's not as though there is any real history of cops randomly shooting black women in public.  People saw Joanne with a gun, and there was more than one gun used to shoot the cops.  It's just terribly unlikely that Joanne is not a killer. 70.112.220.223 10:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you are a state trooper does not give you credibility. I heartily agree with the response that sourced additions are welcome, but not mere commentary from interested parties.

It appears to me that whether or not Assata Shakur was convicted by an American court of law, or any court, for that metter, is irrelevent when the clear and substantiated instances judicial misconduct taint the credibility of the verdict. Also, I do not believe the presence of a bounty on a person does not support or refute guilt in a crime, regardless of who is paying it.

COINTELPRO ?
I removed :


 * Her trials were part of a general assault on the Black liberation movement by the FBI COINTELPRO program.

Well, mainly for being NPOV / non factual (er, until someone comes up with a credible source). She was involved in a murder case, saying it's part of an assault on thre Black Liberation movement seems pretty far-fetched. It's probably be possible to reinsert something on COINTELPRO somewhere in the article, though. Or saying that "some say this was part of a general assault ..." but some sources on that would be useful. Flammifer 05:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it known that she was involved in the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI raid of the FBI outpost that outed the files on COINTELPRO? I don't know for sure, but since such a raid did occur it's possible that this is valid. I didn't mean to revert this back in, since it isn't verified as yet, but after the stuff that went up it was hard to tell what was partisan/vandalism-removal and what wasn't. Fearwig 04:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Something to possibly integrate
This page has some, er, interesting stuff ...


 * After their capture, my father was part of the team assigned to guard the severely wounded Chesimard in the hospital. As the troopers stood outside of her room, she incessantly chanted, "If I had some poison gas, I'd throw it on your white ass."


 * Both were tried and sentenced to life in prison. During the trial, both defendants were highly disruptive and violent. Eventually the judge had them placed in a separate sound-proof booth that suppressed their chants and allowed them to hear and see the courtroom through a plastic window. During the proceedings, the two defendants laid on the ground of the booth and had sex in the midst of the courtroom. Chesimard became pregnant and had a daughter before being transferred to the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women, where on November 2, 1979, she was sprung from the prison by four visitors that took a guard and a driver hostage. Despite an intense manhunt, she remained on the lamb in the US until 1986, when she made her way to Cuba and was granted political asylum. Today she walks free as a professor, counter-cultural heroine and published author, reviewed by the NY Times: "A deftly written book... a spellbinding tale." Incidentally, her stature has also been augmented by virtue of being the aunt of the late rapper, Tupac Shakur.

That may be worth integrating, but some better sources would be useful.


 * The above narrative makes it sound as though Shakur and her co-defendant copulated in front of the judge, jury, lawyers, clerks and so on. The account in her autobiography is quite different. Morganfitzp 03:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Her autobiography is pretty damn ridiculous. It doesn't even mention the shootout.  She was extremely violent in court and was indeed in the courtroom when she slept with that man.  She got railroaded to some extent and almost certainly did not shoot anyone, but she was still a violent racist person who had no problem being as crude as this story implies. 70.112.220.223 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Evidence?
I would be interested to see some analysis of the evidence for and against Shakar's guilt, but I'm not qualified to do it. How did the prosecution get over issues like the absense of gunpowder residue?

--TheronJ 14:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Geez are we a little biased on this page. The woman is a murderer and deserves the death sentence. You stated she could not have fired the weapon (why not?)

Because examining doctors determined that the bullet could not have ended up where it was from her angle.


 * Those doctors were hacks. They were bought and paid for.  And the idea that she could not move or raise her arms for any reason in the middle of a shootout is a thin argument.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.220.223 (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

- The simple answer is that they did not, necessarily - as referenced elsewhere in this article and in other case information, Assata was convicted as an accomplice, which under New Jersey State Law at the time, carries the same charge and conviction as that of the murderer themselves. So, whether it is your opinion that the doctors were hacks or not, in the end, that argument is irrelevant, given the verdict. However, I'd really like to be able to see the court documents; they don't seem to be available from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.34.84 (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
There's a few things I cleaned up here. First, the article is "Assata Shakur" but the text of the article kept refering to her by her former name "Joanne Chesimard". This is confusing. I changed "Chesimard" references to "Shakur", except, of course, for references to the Congressional resolution in which the name "Chesimard" was used and which factored into the Congressional Black Caucus issue.

"However, this argument doesn't seem to hold water as the state's case proved that Chesimard was the initial shooter." I removed this sentence because it's point was already made two paragraphs previous and also because it is POV.

"However, they and their supporters have had a difficult time explaining exactly how a police officer was shot twice in the head with his own gun" I removed this sentence because it is POV.

"As far as organizations strongly supporting her return, the list is endless." I removed this sentence because it fails to provide useful information. Does someone have a list of organizations supporting her extradition that could replace this sentence?

This article clearly needs more editing, particularly to clean up the smattering of one-sentence paragraphs towards the end. It also could use more references, rather than simply saying "supporters/detractors say..."

--Chrisath 20:12, 27 December, 2005

"However, the scientific evidence presented at trial dispelled this attempt." Removed because, again, this contention was already made and, furthermore, it treats this conclusion as if it were widely accepted. There are very many people who accept, in good faith, both sides of the story. Wikipedia cannot treat one side as correct. That's what NPOV is all about.

"However, they and their supporters have had a difficult time explaining exactly how a police officer was shot twice in the head with his own gun" Once more, this is POV and I have removed it. If this could be framed in a NPOV fashion, I would be happy to leave it be. However, statements such as "supporters have had a difficult time explaining" clearly takes a side in the controversy and cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. To 152.163.101.5, please make your case here in the discussion board, instead of simply making anonymous changes.

--Chrisath 4:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
In case not everything makes sense here, this article has been thoroughly vandalized by The Old Buck. The individual in question has visited the bio pages of multiple individuals who changed their names (generally to African-root names) and changed them back en masse. He's also been inserting POV and occasionally purely propagandistic (or vulgar) material to these articles. I'm searching his contributions at present, and I've found none (yet) that were made in earnest. Either we can revert to a stage previous his edits, or we can work to fix it manually--I'm not sure how many changes have been made since, so I'm not going to touch it until I can take a better look. Fearwig 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken a stab at reverting this. If I removed anything legitimate, please inform me. Some of this was not plain vandalism so much as the replacement of objectively-stated material with extreme bias. All material, however, is contrary to guidelines. Again, take it up with me here if there's a problem. Fearwig 00:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Joanne Chesimard was born in New York City. I changed her place of birth from Wilmington, NC to New York City. Until someone can show indisputable evidence otherwise, this article must reflect the information provided by the FBI.


 * Why "must" this article "reflect the information provided by the FBI"? They are about the least NPOV organization I can think of. Have we forgotten about COINTELPRO? VinnyCee 06:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Name
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, her name is Joanne Chesimard and "Assata Shakur" is only an alias. This article should reflect the information provided by FBI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.148.19 (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
 * According to the NYT source I have next to her name, she has changed her name. Wikipedia does not use birth names as the primary name when the person goes by another name. See Jay-Z (and just about every hip-hop artist) as well as most articles about Black Panthers. Kinky Friedman, for example, hasn't even changed his name; the article uses that name because he publishes under: so does Assata (i.e. her autobiography). NPOV is not the same as government point of view. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Homage
"A Song for Assata", from Common's 2000 Like Water for Chocolate is dedicated to Sister Shakur.--Rockero 22:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Impossible statement
"Zayd Shakur was killed ... Sundiata Acoli, Assata and Zayd Shakur then got back into their car and drove for eight miles"

How could Zayd get back into the car if he was already dead? savidan(talk) (e@) 09:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncited/non-notable info
"In November 1980 she released a tape called "From Somewhere in the World" about the acts of white supremacist violence in the United States between 1979 and 1980. On July 1981, the left-wing organization National Committee to Honor New Afrikan Freedom Fighters mobilized 1,000 people to honor Assata Shakur and the BLA."

"A New York City councilman Charles Barron continues to be an avid supporter of Shakur."

Couldn't find a source for this. savidan(talk) (e@) 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

GA comments
I don't know anything about Assata Shakur so this was an interesting article for me. I have a few comments/suggestions.

1) The article says she is the "non-biological godmother" of Tupac Shakur.  But aren't godparents usually non-kin?

2) This is a biographical article, but it is dominated by the turnpike shootout. Is there more notable stuff to say about Assata Shakur besides that?  The article says she was a Black Panther and in the Black Liberation Army -- is there anything more to say about her activist life?  How about her life in Cuba?  If there isn't much to say about that it almost seems like this article should be called "Trials of Assata Shakur" or something more like that...

3) The trial stuff doesn't include enough about the prosecution's POV.  I have no idea, reading this, how they decided to convict her of the assault/attempted murder of Trooper Harper.  What did the judge say?  How did the prosecution counter the doctors' testimony?  This information needs to be included.  Also, the way the trial section is currently set up is confusing.  The information about the conviction precedes the various types of testimony -- it would be better if the conviction were mentioned after the testimony.

4)The section "escape and political asylum in Cuba" contains a lot of stuff which doesn't really belong under that heading, like the stuff about the documentary, Mos Def, and the various stuff which has been named and un-named for her. Maybe the section should be renamed.Katsam 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I added the non-biological part because many sources erroniously refer to her as his biological aunt as well.


 * I found some interviews with her that I could use to expand upon her life in Cuba and was planning on reading her autobiography to expand upon her life before the shootout. I've been hoping to find some book reviews instead though because if it hasn't been reported by a secondary source we might be in dangerous territory original research-wise.


 * In answer to your question, I think that the best insight I've found into why she was convicted (without relying on the theory that the jury was racist) is the way the acomplice laws were written at the time. They didn't necessarily have to think that she shot the Trooper in the head to convict her, just that her presence at the scene aided and abetted the crimes. The sources I've found say that the prosecution didn't introduce any testimony to counter the medical witnesses (although amdmittedly these are pro-Shakur sources; it's possible that the prosecution thought they had asked adequate cross-examination questions). However, I can't do more than speculate; the trial transcript is not publicly available and the district attorney and Trooper Harper haven't written books or articles post-trial that I am aware of. I think the conviction should be mentioned first because its more notable than the individual pieces of evidence, but I'd be willing to change the order.


 * I absolutely agree with your #4 comment; I just haven't thought of an appropriate section title yet. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's OK if you read her autobiography and include that information: that doesn't qualify as original research.  WP:NOR means you can't write things in Wikipedia unless they've already been written somewhere else.  You can't, for instance, call Trooper Harper up on the phone and write in Wikipedia about your interview with him.  But writing things which were in a person's published autobiography are fine.


 * If you want to say that she wasn't his aunt, I would suggest saying that outright. Something like "Though many sources have erroneously claimed that Shakur was the aunt of hip-hop artist Tupac Shakur, this is not the case.  Instead, she was his godmother."  You can link to the "godparent" page if you're afraid people think "godparent" is a blood link.


 * It surprises me that the trial transcript would be under lock and key: I thought that stuff was public domain?  Well, anyway, there ought to be some mention of the point of view of folks who thought she did it -- and there must be some people who think so if there's a $1 million dollar bounty out for her.  It may be that those people think so for racist/political reasons, and it may be that she was convicted on the grounds that being present = being an accomplice -- but in that case why even bother having a trial?  They knew she was there.  Anyway, the article will seem non-neutral until it has some semblance of the prosecutorial POV.


 * Finally, this sentence is a little messed up:
 * "On 25 March 1977—back in Middlesex County, New Jersey—Shakur was convicted as an accomplice the murders of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and Zayd Shakur, possession of weapons, as well as assault and attempted murder of Trooper Harper." -- Katsam 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it to a "Legacy" section; it seems a bit odd to be doing this for a livng person but this is where the info would go in most articles. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a fine line between using weasel words and having to quote the various blogs and the internet that erroniously refer to her as his aunt/cousin/etc. I prefer simply stating that theres no relations. Godparent is already linked.


 * They didn't even have stenographers at every trial back in the 70s. Such a transcript might not exist; it almost certainly isn't online. I don't live or go to school anywhere near New Jersey. I think that anything that requires you to file a FOIA request, is original research.


 * Is your problem with that sentence that "back in Middlesex County" clause? If so I could move that too a separate sentence. I just thought that was less aescetically pleasing. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If the basis of her conviction is that she was merely present at the scene, why is there multiple paragraphs that attempt to show that she wasn't the shooter? The attempt seems to be to imply that she was innocent of the charges. Is this relevant?
 * There aren't multiple paragraphs that attempt to show anything. Just cited information about what evidence was presented at her trial. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold
I am placing the article on hold for 1 week pending clean-up of the following issues:


 * 1) organization: Article needs a reorganization.  The main focus of the article seems to be the NJ State Trooper shooting; information on this is broken up and scattered.
 * 2) Referencing: The section titled "New Jersey Turnpike shootout" is entirely unreferenced.
 * 3) NPOV: The article takes the tone that Ms. Shakur was innocent of wrongdoing, and wrongly accused of the murders she was convicted of.  While I would also disagree if the article slanted in the opposite direction; the article presents too much evidence against her conviction while giving NONE of the evidence in support of her conviction.  This needs to be corrected.

In 1 week, I will return and pass or fail based on these fixes. --Jayron 32 04:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the references.


 * I don't see how you would prefer the NJ State Trooper shooting info organized. I think it makes much more sense to address the evidence introduced in the trial in its own section. I'd be open to a more specific suggestion on the sectioning.


 * Could you give some examples of where the tone is a problem? The current balance of content, rather than being the result of my personal preferences, reflects the constraints of WP:CITE and WP:RS. Unless you can point me to some sources which you think are ignored, that would basically be asking me to make up some of my own reasons why she should have been convicted. savid @ n 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is way past the 7 day hold time. I will fail this in a few days unless this is fixed: lead does not summarize the article, refs are not in a consistent format.Rlevse 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Failed GA due to lack of action on concerns.Rlevse 01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Article POV
The entire section on the trial and the evidence presented at it is sorced rpimarily from Shakur's website, hardly a WP:RS. I will place a tag on the article and begin to clean it up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would caution you to be a little more thorough than just looking at the url. These are independently published articles. I decided to link to Shakur's website when possible only for the benefit of people without access to proprietary databases. Where a published source has been reproduced online hardly effects its reliability. I would be glad to see you find more sources, but don't smite the existing information in the name of sources that we wish existed. Savidan 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Having replaced one reference in the medical evidence section, Assata herself is now only cited for the identity of her defense attorneys and the fact that she was interviewed by Ralph Penza. Savidan 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A couple of things here. Any information from the "STATEMENT OF FACTS IN THE NEW JERSEY TRIAL OF ASSATA SHAKUR" is highly suspect and in all likelyhood does not confrom to WP:RS, and in all likelyhood WP:BLP as it has an overtly partisan POV. This goes for the entire site, published by Jacuma Kambui, as it violates WP:RS on self published sources. However, I would not object to its use as a mirror for third hand articles mirrored on its site.


 * I would also like to point out that the facts (as a mater of law and procedure) of her crimes were established by her conviction by the jury. The statements of Evelyn A. Williams are not facts, they are purely speculative at this point, and as Chesimard's lawyer, likely to be bullshit. Anything outside of what the jury found is not a fact. The information about Harper's cross examination, for example, is not a "fact", it is speculative and interprative. The jury decided that Harper's testimony was both credible and truthfull when they convicted Chesimard. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll work on replacing any sources which originate on her website rather than being mirrored there (should not be too difficult to do).


 * I do not agree that for the purposes of Wikipedia, the findings of the Jury are necessarily assumed to be true. Nor does the fact that she was convicted mean that we should assume that they agreed with every element of the prosecutions case. I see no reason why we should discount her attorney's as a source entirely. I would be glad to cite the prosecutor if he has written anything about this as well. Savidan 17:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me clarify, although you inferred that I meant "true", I am speaking strictly of the legal meaning of fact (see Question of fact). Most other Wikipedia articles do take the default position, in the cases of criminals and crimes, that truth does equal the Question of fact as determined by law. Chesimard's lawyer is a WP:RS, but surely not as it is presented here as it is used to be determining issues of facts, i.e.:


 * Under cross-examination at both Acoli and Shakur's trials, Trooper Harper admitted to having lied in these reports and in his Grand Jury testimony about Trooper Foerster yelling and showing him an ammunition clip, about seeing Shakur holding a pocketbook or a gun inside the vehicle, and about Shakur shooting at him from the car


 * This is clearly a case of the defense team twisting Harper’s testimony and written report out of context. Harper testified that Chesimard shot from the car. How did he know that? Did he see it? Well, no, he did not see her shoot (as he was distracted with the fight with the others outside the car), but he concluded that she did as he knew that shots came from the car and Chesimard was the only one in it. Completely circumstantial, but very strong (as circumstantial evidence goes).


 * The defense spins it to the jury as a “lie” and the prosecution spins it as a “clarification”, but its up to the jury to decide if the testimony is credible, which they did in this case. Regardless, for the article to take the position that Harper “lied” is a gross violation of POV. This is one of many examples I could cite from the article as it currently is. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can produce a source about how Trooper Harper or the prosecution would prefer to explain his testimony, then I think it should be easy to come to a compromise wording. Can you source the claim that the prosecution spun it as clarification?


 * I see no need to come to any sort of objective truth for the purposes of this article. Where sources diverge, merely explain the difference. If you can find a better source for the jury's findings, which are already included in the article, feel free to expand them. Savidan 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure I can get my hands on a copy of the trial transcripts. Had the jury actually believed that Harper “lied”, the prosecutions case would have disintegrated right then and there. I am sure the transcripts will show a re-direct to the prosecution, along with Harper’s clarification. As far as objective truth, based on my experience here at Wikipedia, articles dealing with topics like this present allegations that result in a conviction as the defacto “objective truth” (i.e. John Doe murdered Jane Doe although John Doe and his supporters feel his conviction is unjustified). Just as at one point the burden of proof was on the prosecution to establish the guilt, after that is done, the burden should now fall on the defenders. And just because Chesimard’s defenders are more vocal about her “innocence”, (websites, blogs, books, articles, etcetera) that certainly does not make their opinion more noteworthy or more credible than the results of the trial. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps an RfC is in order, as this current discussion has generated a number of other relevant issues other than is this article NPOV or not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to invite more people to come look at this article, that's fine. I welcome your edits to the article. I'm only trying to emphasize the importance of sources and that NPOV is not always equilavent to the point of view of the US government, justice system etc. "X was convincted of Y" is a perfectly neutral and factual statement which should be preferred over "X killed/stole from/raped Y". Also, as you'll note, she wasn't actually convicted of Murder I, but of several felonies, most notably an accomplice to both deaths that took place. Savidan 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is most certainly true, that NPOV does not equal the POV of the US government, a trial is a determination by impartial jurors of the facts of the allegations. Aside from the astute and well informed legal opinions of Mos Def and Maxine Waters, how many serious and notable legal scholars have called into question Chesimard’s verdict? It might be useful to find some of these instead of relying on the opinions of amateur advocates to dominate the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As for your analysis that "had Harper lied, she wouldn't have been convicted" (I'm paraphrasing)...maybe, maybe not. I don't really see it as the proper role for this article to go through that kind of analysis. I'd welcome your finding a trial transcript. Savidan 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True, it is not proper for the article to go through an analysis of Harper’s testimony, it would be WP:NOR. But I did find this by Gerald Tomlinson in his book "Murdered in Jersey":


 * Chesimard’s trial on the murder charge opened on February 15, 1977, with Middlesex County Prosecutor Edward J Barone saying that the defendant had “executed” Trooper Forester with his own weapon. Defense attorney William M. Kuntsler argued that Chesimard had her hands in the air when the three shots struck her arms and shoulder. He had forensics experts to back him up, but the jurors were inclined to believe Trooper Harper’s account of the shooting rather than Joanne Chesimard’s story of quite submission.


 * Now Kuntsler claimed that the reason the jury convicted her was because they were racist, surprisingly considering that Kuntsler had just paid out on a defamation lawsuit brought against him by a juror in NYC after he made the same claim about a particular juror in Chesimard’s bank robbery trial. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That the jury was all white or that several had personal connections to state troopers is a fact already cited in the article. I don't see the need to make the logical leap of saying that the jury was racist any more than I do of making the opposite conclusion. The facts alone are sufficient for an encyclopedia article. I don't see what the point is though about that block quote. The article already makes it very clear that the jury convicted her. I don't think that means we have to retroactively go back and changed sourced information to make it seem like the jury's view was incontrovertible. The definition of a trial aside, that does not mean that the jury's view is equivalent to NPOV either. I'd be glad if you could find some "series and notable legal scholars" to cite in addition to the sources currently used in the article. Savidan 16:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The jury was all white, this is a fact, undisputed. Several jurors having "personal connections" means what? It sounds like defense claptrap to me. Is getting a ticket in the past year from a State Trooper a "personal connection"? The above quote I used is relevant because, in my mind, it implies that perhaps the prosecutions re-direct on the defense’s experts, or their own forensic experts were convincing enough to render the questioning of the evidence moot. Only 12 people have evaluated and judged the evidence of Chesimard's crimes, and they all came to the conclusion that she was guilty. Barry any evidence to impeach their determination, this should be the dominant POV in the article. Allowing the defense’s POV to dominate the article, fundamentally skews its POV. The dearth of judicial or legal opinion on this trial and conviction would lead me to believe that, outside a fringe group of Chesimard's supporters, there is little serious debate as to her guilt or innocence. As material becomes available to me, I will begin re-writing portions of this article. There were many articles in local newspapers and the trial transcripts, that while not available online, I have requested from the library. Until such time (no more than a few weeks), I would ask that the tag stays in place. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Sounds like defense claptrap to me." Please just make comments based on what you can source. This has a pretty specific meaning to lawyers who specialize in jury selection (i.e. friend or relative) but that's totally irrelevant. Please base your comments on sources, rather than your own original research.


 * Jury point of view is not equivalent to neutral point of view. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy to make that the "dominant" point of view (whatever that means). Please make clear what you mean by this. If you mean that a conviction by jury must be presented as infallible and the "dominant" pov then I strongly disagree and believe that we should follow your original suggestion to file a RFC. Please base your comments on specific things that can be reconciled between sources, rather than demanding that the article be "fundamentally" skewed in one direction. Propose as many specific changes as you want, but please, no vaguely totalizing ones.


 * I don't really care about things like pov tags; we can leave it there as long as you like. Savidan 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How about now?
I've got through some massive expansion/rewriting. In particular, I've replaced the Williams ref in all but three situations: (1) that there are only four surviving witnesses (a relatively uncontroversial fact); (2) the testimony of the driver who just happened to be passing by (also relatively uncontroversial, and I couldn't find another source that referenced this, I'll remove it if others feel otherwise...); and (3) Shakur's testimony (since it's Shakur's side of the story, I see no reason to believe why her lawyer wouldn't be a reliable source for this). Savidan 04:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass
I have passed the article. It is very well-written, comprehensive, and has plenty of sources. Well done - • The Giant Puffin •  10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Powder Residue
Powder residue is gone after only a few hours, and as Chesimard was on the lamb for over a day, it would be safe to assume that no powder residue would be found on her hands. Did the police test her clothes? Residue could remain on the cloths for weeks to months if they are ot washed. I would like clarification on this, and minus that a qualifier on the length of residual gunpowder evidence. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all fascinating and something that I personally am interested in. However, I will not add speculation to the article that cannot be bourne out in published sources. I'm pretty sure that the NAA was administered at the scene, and I have seen no source that says it was signficantly afterwards. She wasn't "on the lamb for over a day"; you must be thinking of the manhunt for Accoli. If you find a source that says when the NAA was adminstered, add it; if you find a source that makes the leap you have made (i.e. to say that it was too long for it to give results), add that. Savidan 05:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Driving While Black
I think I may have found a source that is "reliable" enough that describes the reason for the Troopers pulling the vehicle over as "Driving While Black". Is a House Resolution good enough? Assata even claims this herself at her website, "Because we were black, and riding in a car with Vermont license plates, he claimed he became "suspicious."" Also, a Google search of the terms "Driving While Black" Assata returns 266 hits. Is these good enough? If not, what would be considered as "reliable"? VinnyCee 06:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the term is innately humorous, even if it's a dry sort of dark humor. As a result, I don't think it fits with an encyclopedic tone. Fearwig 17:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You may add it to the "legacy" type section, under various ways that people have expressed support for her. Perhaps near the part that mentions the US Congressional resolution. Just be sure to state it in neutral term; quote it; make it clear who is being quoted and in what context (i.e. what the purpose of the resolution was), and link to the DWB article, with a piped link if you have to to avoid paraphrasing. Savidan 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummmm, no. They were pulled over for a broken tail-light.  That is enough probable cause for a traffic stop.  Equinox137 (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it wouldn't be appropriate for the article to take a stance on the legitmacy of their being pulled over in either direction. In my earlier post I was referring to this being a candidate for inclusion if the allegation of DWB was notable as such. Savidan 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (kept)
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Ruslik 07:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article cited 17 times - where was it, where is it now
I tried to locate the source of the statement "Shakur's defense attorney's were not allowed to question prospective jurors", but could not. The citation is:  . Whatever this The Times is, it's not The New York Times – the article is not in the NYT archives and searching there for "Alix Krista" or "Alix Kirsta" turns up nothing. Then I thought perhaps this was the UK The Times, but a search at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ doesn't turn up anything. One would hope there is an online copy somewhere to support its 17 citations here. Anyone? --CliffC 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I accessed it on factiva. Send me an email using the "email this user" feature and I will gladly email you a copy. Savidan 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where was it originally published? --CliffC 00:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation is accurate. Its from The Times. I don't know how comprehensive their website is. I'd post the full text here but there are copyright issues. Savidan 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Assatabio.jpg
Image:Assatabio.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims that Harper "admitted to having lied", etc.
In section "Witnesses" we have the statements
 * Under cross-examination at both Acoli and Shakur's trials, Trooper Harper admitted to having lied in these reports and in his Grand Jury testimony about Trooper Foerster yelling and showing him an ammunition clip, about seeing Shakur holding a pocketbook or a gun inside the vehicle, and about Shakur shooting at him from the car. Trooper Harper retracted his previous statements and said that he had never seen Shakur with a gun, and that she did not shoot him.

These statements are sourced to (1) Mark Lewis Taylor's New York Times opinion piece; (2) investigative journalist Alix Kirsta's race-and-politics article "A black and white case - Investigation - Joanne Chesimard" in the (UK) The Times; and (3) the editor of "The Angela Y. Davis Reader" Joy James's book "Transcending the Talented Tenth: Black Leaders and American Intellectuals"

These are easily recognizable as partisan, non-neutral sources. Even assuming the three have not fed on each other's writings, their claims don't add up to much. In consideration of the WP:BLP admonition to "do no harm", pending discovery of a reliable source for these statements (and I have looked), I recommend that they be removed immediately. CliffC (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. A professor and an investigative reporter publishing in well-known publications should be given the benefit of the doubt. The third source is in a published book written by a prof and editted by a different prof. In the absense of a single source that contradicts this, these sources are more than enough to keep the material in the article. It goes without saying that your objection to these sources as partisan is simply that, your own; no one has published anything to that effect.


 * Furthermore, your interpretation of the BLP policy is incorrect, in my opinion. BLP is designed to protect people from stuff written on blogs, not the New York Times, The Times (UK), and a published book. It's also designed to deal with private matters like an Australian kid throwing a big kegger, rather than a law enforcement official giving testimony at a murder trial (which, in principle, is part of the public record). All of this is not to mention the fact that BLP could just as easily be interpreted in the opposite direction (perhaps more so given that the subject of the article is more likely to be "harmed" than someone mentioned in an article) in this instance.


 * I would also add that these sources in particular underwent scrutiny at the fac and were ultimately deemed to be acceptable. Savidan 19:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alleged
Yes, the criminal instances themselves are alleged, not just her participation. It makes no sense to have a different editorial style for allegations about Shakur alone and allegations about Shakur that include others. When someone alleges that a crime has occured, but no one is convicted of a crime, when writing about that, the use of the term "alleged" is indeed appropriate. I consider this a WP:BLP issue as well as one of clarity when writing about criminal law. Savidan 03:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems fair enough, at least for the moment. I'll take another look at the article later. ClovisPt (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dog whistle politics
Thanks for the laugh. I consider myself somewhat politically savvy, but dog whistle politics is an expression I had not heard before. When I deleted the phrase "—the 85th anniversary of the death of Harriet Tubman—" from the statement
 * On March 10, 1998—the 85th anniversary of the death of Harriet Tubman—New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman asked Attorney General Janet Reno to do whatever it takes to return Shakur from Cuba.

my edit summary said "remove extraneous fact, every day is the anniversary of something". You reverted my edit, with the summary "disagree--dog whistle politics, particularly related to important dates in african american history, is a well documented phenomenon; please don't remove cited info so glibly". Do you seriously believe that the governor of New Jersey checked her desktop Black History calendar so that her letter to Janet Reno would be sent on the 85th anniversary of Harriet Tubman's death? If so, perhaps she also considered waiting one more day, so she could instead spoil Ralph Abernathy's 72nd birthday; what a great dog whistle that would have been. Or, maybe she slyly picked March 10 because that's the date in 1922 Mahatma Ghandi was arrested for sedition. Or, maybe March 10 is simply the date she finished the letter.

You seem to have overlooked the author's own phrase, "ironically and coincidentally", in the cited article, unless Wikipedia now deals in irony and coincidence. Even Elombe Brath knows that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. --CliffC (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think the inclusion of this fact requires proof that this was the cause of the gov. acting on that day. I think the fact that a reliable source found it relevant to mention the anniversary in connection with that action is enough for inclusion. I think that you're quoting of that article is not true to its spirit. Irregardless, I have seen this "coincidence" reported on elsewhere, and if you give me a day or so, I will add more references. I don't think this would be true of all anniversaries. I think that enough politicians choose to signal their conservative credentials in such ways: a speech about affirmative action on mlk day, etc. i'm doubtful myself that gov. whitman had that specific intention, but i think that her campaign against assata more generally has been frequently subjected to that type of interpretation. I think that the standard for including such anniversaries in the article should be if they are mentioned in reliable sources with the same subject focus; that way it avoids original research, etc. Your post seems more interested in debating whether that anniversary was the cause of Whitman's actions, rather than whether that anniversary is notable to the way those actions may have been interpreted, or noted. A sourced irony or coincidence is worthy of inclusion. Savidan 02:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of this random coincidence for purposes of irony is definitely not within the scope of wikipedia. ClovisPt (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this qualifies as random for the reasons laid out above. However, I have moved it to a footnote. If this is not amenable to you, please discuss it further here before removing (generally a good rule of thumb when you see material that has been a source of talk page dispute in the past). Savidan 03:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. ClovisPt (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Inept composition
I have to congratulate those most responsible for attaining Featured Article for this. I would like to say I think the topic is worthy of the award. But I also need to object that the topic deserves better writing. The main writers have lousy writing judgment, especially as to dramatic flow. The text is tedious and full of trivial details. Hurmata (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that sincere congratulatory message. As someone who contributed to the article, although only to the extent permitted by the main contributor, allow me to point out that it was built over many months by several people working individually on a controversial subject, a situation not conducive to developing "dramatic flow".  It wasn't built overnight from a collection of already vetted facts and citations such as is now available for you to incorporate into a heroic rewrite.  As to your statement that "The main writers have lousy writing judgment", I think that your judgement must be poor indeed to toss around such insults, and suggest a refresher course in Wikipedia's rules of civility.  --CliffC (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit history of this article has become too chaotic and laced with vandalism for me to deal with while it is on the main page. I look forward to reviewing the changes that result from this exposure over the next few days. Historically, such exposure has been more often a source of improvement than disimprovement and I am optimistic that this will be the case here. I would encourage Hurmata and others to stick around and discuss their views about the page more concretely and specifically on the talk page in the meantime. I feel that the desire for a "dramatic flow" may be misplaced given the controversial nature of the subject matter, the constraints of the BLP policy (among others), and the unfortunately lacunae inherent in the currently available source material; however, I am certainly open to further and continuing improvements in the article's prose. Savidan 05:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hurmata, if Collegebookworm's edit comment is right, you're screwing up the flow of the article, by adding trivia about what's happened to locations involved in the incidents in the years since they stopped being at all relevant to the subject, how Jersey State police operate differently now, etc. (Detailed in my and CBM's editing them out here .) -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Divorce
The article says that she was divorced over something like gender issues. We generally don't know why people were divorced, not being gods. It is no doubt known that she was divorced CITING gender issues, whatever a gender issue is.Geneven (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

eyeglass containing 16 live shells
"Under cross-examination, Shakur was unable to explain how three clips of ammunition and an eyeglass containing 16 live shells had got into her shoulder bag".

How can an eyeglass (singular??) contain shells? The nearest I can guess is that the shells were found in an "eyeglasses case", or something? -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant paragraph in the source: "Under cross-examination by Mr. Barone, Mrs. Chesimard was unable to explain how three clips of ammunition and an eyeglass containing 16 live shells had got into her shoulder bag. She also admitted knowing that Mr. Costan carried a gun at times". Savidan 05:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This has got to be some kind of typo. Or explain to me how eyeglasses can hold sixteen shells, there's no way to secure them anywhere on a pair of eyeglasses.  There's no place to put anything "in" eyeglasses, no compartments.  -- AvatarMN (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's almost certainly a source typo that was intended to say "eyeglass case". I suggest that when things settle down we can reduce confusion while remaining true to the source by dropping the phrase "and an eyeglass containing", leaving the accurate statement "Under cross-examination, Shakur was unable to explain how three clips of ammunition and 16 live shells had got into her shoulder bag".  --CliffC (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Cliff, a few of your recent edits I found to be misguided. The "Trials and dismissals" section is optimally titled because seven "legal actions" were undertaken against Shakur; four resulted in trials, three resulted in dismissals. The construction is parallel and sums up the section. An "indictment" is just one small part of the legal action occuring at the beginning. Not only does this provide an inadequate summary of the result, but it also creates the false impression that "Indictments and trials" is a parallel construction. In fact, all of these actions included indictments but only some included trials. This is thus an incomplete summary, just as incomplete as saying "Indictments and dismissals". When summing up the legal actions of this period from the perspective of the present, four of these would be called "trials" and three would be called "dismissals". "Arraignments and trials", "Arraignments and indictments", "Arraignments and voir dires" etc. would have the same problem. Savidan 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, be careful when discarding information in sentences sourced to multiple sources on the grounds that it is not in one of the sources. Savidan 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Savidan, you say the heading you reverted, "Indictments and trials", "creates the false impression that [it] is a parallel construction", false because not every indictment resulted in a trial. Yet you insist on the heading "Trials and dismissals", implying a parallel construction even though not every trial resulted in a dismissal.  Let's just head this section "Legal actions" then.  As it stands, heading this major section "Trials and dismissals" implies that every trial resulted in a dismissal, not the case.


 * On my "discarding information in sentences sourced to multiple sources", before I made the edit you reference, I wondered whether "Brooklyn heroin dealer" was some sort of a code phrase for the kidnapped Brooklyn bartender, and I paid $3.95 to buy a copy of the Nelson reference from the Washington Post web site. The piece is simply a review of Shakur's autobiography, and on the subject of kidnapping Nelson says only "Between 1973 and 1977 Shakur was indicted 10 times and stood trial for two bank robberies, the kidnaping of a drug dealer, attempted murder of several police officers and the murder of a New Jersey state trooper".  No "heroin" in the article, no "Brooklyn".  Nor did I find "heroin" or "drug dealer" coupled with Chesimard/Shakur in the New York Times archives, certainly weakening the "Brooklyn heroin dealer" phrase I removed.  I resent your advising me to "be careful", when all that supports the "Brooklyn heroin dealer" phrase is radical partisan and disgraced former professor Ward Churchill who is cited a dozen other places here – not a very convincing source.


 * Further on the subject of partisan sourcing, I still object to your use of the New York Times "Soapbox" opinion piece by Mark Lewis Taylor, whose web page at Princeton shows he is "Professor of Theology and Culture" teaching courses on, among other things, "white racism as theological challenge".  Setting the partisanship issue aside for a moment, in my edit here I removed the statement cited to Taylor "The jury determined that a widely circulated FBI photo allegedly showing a wigged Shakur participating in the robbery was not her. ".  My edit summary was "introduce surveillance photos and wig theory earlier; remove sentence that draws a conclusion and its citation, which in any event does not menton a wig".  When you removed the phrase "a wigged" and restored the sentence as "One jury even determined that a widely circulated F.B.I. photo showing her in a bank robbery was not her at all", with an edit summary of "indeed, it doesn't mention a wig; its quite curious that you would remove the entire sentence though", you missed the point: the original sentence in Taylor's opinion piece (not an objective news piece or report) "One jury even determined that a widely circulated F.B.I. photo showing her in a bank robbery was not her at all" is simply his synthesis of what he's read, his own conclusion and opinion on something the jury believed.  His opinion is very likely correct, but it is only that, his opinion.  It's not reporting and IMO it's worthless as a citation.


 * As it stands, heading this major section "Trials and dismissals" implies that every trial resulted in a dismissal, not the case - I don't think that this is implied at all by that statement. I read it as Savidan said - there were either trials or dismissals. I wouldn't object to a rename of the section to "Legal actions" or something though. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For what its worth, I strongly considered simply keeping the section title "Trials" even though that would be strictly speaking inaccurate for the dismissals without dismissal. "Legal actions" isn't the worst thing in the world, but I don't think its truly a term-of-art, and its ultimately quite vague. Savidan 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not meaning to sound rude but I fail to see the logic of having a “parallel construction” for the title of this section. The section clearly describes a series of like events (criminal charges) which precipitated outcomes, (dispositions).  All of this is boiled down in the table that is featured at the beginning of this section.  206.211.166.17 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Taylor's opinion piece is cited one other time in the article, where Trooper Harper is said to have "admitted to having lied" in reports and testimony. More about that in a moment.  CliffC (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Not every trial resulted in a dismissal"...I know...the trials resulted in hung juries, mistrials, convictions, and acquittals. That is not the point at all. The point is that three of the seven indictments/arraignments/actions against Shakur resulted in dismissal without trial, and these three actions are most accurately referred to as dismissals. The other four, regardless of their results, are most accurately referred to as trials. It makes no such implication to the informed reader, and the uninformed reader will quickly become informed once they start reading the section.


 * Yes, indeed, Churchhill was fired, etc. But it wasn't because he mis-identified someone as a heroin dealer. In fact, his cointelpro book has been nearly completely, if not completely, isolated from the controversies surrounding him. Irregardless, its a relatively minor and uncontroverisal detail. The other source says drug dealer; his more researched (and longer) account says the specific drug. Why anyone would want to downgrade the content of this article based on reading the wrong one of the two sources cited is beyond me.


 * Similarly, the jury's determination of the photo is not just his opinion. It's a fact in an opinion piece. There are many places where he could have found this relatively obvious fact, being as the jury's were for the most part interviewed after all of her trials. Of course, only the nyt is instantly available today, making it cumbersome if not impossible to work from contemporaneous news sources for some details. However, when such details are important enough to find their way into secondary sources, and not contradicted by or inconsistent with any other source, they should be used.


 * Btw, if you have trouble finding articles in the future, please email me and I will try to get them to you in a timely manner. Might save you a few bucks. Savidan 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Main Page edits
I've just finished reviewing the edits that occurred while the article was on the Main Page and have corrected or undone several of them. I would encourage others to review both my recent changes and the the sum of the changes since September 29. With the exception of the turnpike shootout section (which is unfollowable in the diff), I believe that the any changes that remain were good edits. When I have the time, I'll go through and reread that section word for word to make sure no disimprovements have entered the article. Savidan 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Criminal charges and dispostions

 * Recently I made an edit to this article, specifically changing the title of the section “Trials and Dismissals” to “Criminal charges and dispositions”. This edit was reverted with the explanation that “this has been much discussed-needless to repeat, this new choice does not highlight the full scope of the sections but rather specific elements of the trials”  I do not believe this to be an entirely accurate statement for two reasons.


 * 1) While this title has been discussed, a review of the discussion, which I made prior to my initial edit, shows that the issue has not reached a point that could be regarded as a satisfactory conclusion. In this discussion three editors made comments.  One was quite opposed to the title claiming that they felt it created a false impression.  Another defended the wording as “optimally titled”, but later stated that they “strongly considered” changing it back to “Trials”.  A third editor offered that they interpreted the title as intended but also would not object to it being renamed “‘Legal action’ or something though.”  I’m sorry, but to my tin ear this does not sound like a consensus was reached and in fact it clearly shows that its defenders are open to change.


 * 2) The criminal charges, as detailed in this section, were not just “specific elements of the trials” as stated above, rather they were the catalysts for all the legal actions that followed. Some of these legal actions progressed to the trial phase with various outcomes while others were dismissed outright.  Therein lies the problem with claiming that the title “Trials and dismissals” is a parallel construction.  A trial is a legal event that leads to an outcome while a dismissal is the outcome of a legal event.  As I stated in the comment that I left when I made this edit, “The section clearly describes a series of like events (criminal charges) which precipitated outcomes (dispositions).  All of this is boiled down in the table that is featured at the beginning of this section.”  Indeed, when the table was added to the article the comment provided was that it was a “summary table”, and that is precisely the function that it performs.  Its left-hand most column is titled “Criminal charge” and its right-hand most column is titled “Disposition”.  This is exactly the scope of this section.  Ms. Shakur/Chesimard was indicted for several different criminal offenses and these indictments had various outcomes.


 * I have changed the title back to “Criminal charges and dispositions”. It covers the scope of this section and the wording is less likely to be misinterpreted.  206.211.166.17 (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Creation of a sub-page
I have had the opportunity to read and go over this article a few times now and I have to confess that I have found it difficult to follow. This is not so much a question of “dramatic flow” as discussed above, but rather an issue with the amount of information concerning the turnpike incident and subsequent trial, and how they are positioned in the article. These two cause-and-effect events are separated by quite a bit other of information from the subject’s life; this includes a large table and the description of four other legal events. While chronologically correct, this does make for a somewhat disjointed presentation. In order that the reader can follow events in a smoother fashion, I would like to recommend that the turnpike incident and subsequent trial be spun off into a separate article. The integrity of the original article can be easily maintained while allowing those readers who wish only to concentrate on the main event in the subject’s life the opportunity to do so. An example of this can be taken from the article on Mumia Abu-Jamal. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Mumia Abu-Jamal is the best example, being as he was not tried for more than one crime. A separate article is useful when there is a lot of information about a subtopic that does not belong in the main article; it does not resolve the issue of what order the article should be written in. As such, I disagree with your statement that the chronological telling of events is "disjointed" or that reading about that trial immediately after the even it related to would be unambiguously "smoother". As it is, I think that the table/table of contents make it easy for readers such as your self to jump to the section about that trial without too much disruption. Savidan 03:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I read the preceding comment I see that I may have failed, perhaps, to clearly articulate the point that I was trying to make. My concern with the article and its flow center on, if I may be allowed to repeat, “the amount of information concerning the turnpike incident and subsequent trial, and how they are positioned in the article.”   In its present form, the New Jersey shootout/trial takes up 40% of the total article.  In the ‘Criminal charges and dispositions” section, this one trial takes up 55% of the coverage and has no less than six sub-paragraphs.  (The rest of the section is composed of a summary table and the description of six legal events.) With respect to the Mumia article, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal article exists due the amount of information concerning that event, not because the information doesn’t belong in the main article.  This is why, I am afraid, that I fail to see the relevance concerning the number of crimes for which Mumia was charged as it relates to whether or not a separate article is useful in this case.  Separate articles were also spun off for the same reason from the article on Ward Churchill; Ward Churchill 9/11 essay controversy and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation.  In both these articles paragraphs on the topics still exist in the main article but due to the amount of information separate articles were written. It is this same argument of the amount of information that is, I firmly believe, applicable to this article.  As such, a separate article can easily and logically be justified.  Unless a smooth argument can be made against it, I will be moving unambiguously in the direction of creating a separate article.  Prost!  Hammersbach (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The current amount and division of information are almost certainly in proportion to the notability of the events/facts in question. This, of course, differs from the case of Mumia in several respects. Even less analogous is the case of Ward Churchhill, where the 9/11 essay controversy is but one of many controversies professor Churchhilll has been embroiled in. In any case, the Churchhill article is not featured, nor is it apparent that the article is optimally organized.


 * To justify a sub-article in this I case, I think it would be incumbent upon you to show: (a) that there is substantially more information about the turnpike trial which would allow the sub-article to be significantly longer in length than the current article; i.e. that notable and verifiable information has been left out of this article due to space concerns, or (b) that this article in its present form is too long, keeping in mind that the length of the article was considered and deemed appropriate during the featured article process (the article is well within community norms when consideration is limited to main body prose).


 * If it is your intention to create a sub-article substantially similar to the current sections of this article, may I suggest that you begin developing the summary that you would suggest to replace those sections in this article in your own workspace; if it is your intention to create a sub-article substantially different (i.e. at least some new content) from the current sections of this article, I suggest you begin writing that article at your convenience and then propose changes to this article when that is complete. I think that this route will allow myself and others to more readily understand what you are proposing. Savidan 06:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

New York Times references - why no URLs
Please provide online URLs to allow readers to verify NYT references. Listing original hardcopy page numbers is not useful. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are these all available on the nyt site for free? I've been having to use proquest to find these articles; I've tried to find about a dozen of them both by using google and searching their site directly with no luck. I also do not believe that this would have the effect of allowing readers to verify the references, as even the links that currently exist only provide access to the first paragraph or so unless you have access. If readers do have access to the nyt site (or any other proprietary database), then the information provided is more than enough to verify the references. I'm not going to remove the links which are already provided, but I don't think its worth my time or anyone elses's to add links to a specific proprietary database which people have to pay to get access to. Otherwise, I would have created proquest links. Savidan 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If I wasn't clear earlier, I do not have access to the nyt site. When I click on the first link for example, I see the first paragraph of the article and a nice little ad telling me I can buy the article for 4 dollars! Savidan 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to The New York Times, their website doesn't give you free access to content between 1922 and 1987, which comprises, needless to say, the entire useful period (i.e. everything before she was in Cuba). Savidan 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All NY Times articles from its founding in 1851 are online, indexed and searchable (nytimes.com). Those from 1851 through 1980 are in PDF format; articles from 1981 on are text format.  Articles before 1922 are considered "in the Public Domain" and are free, those between 1922 and 1987 are considered "Premium" and the Times does charge non-subscribers for access.  However, subscribers to the hardcopy, delivered-to-your-door newspaper get free access to 100 of these each month, very useful in developing articles here.  Can I ask you to include the URL of the referenced article when you add Times references in the future?  I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedians who subscribe to the hardcopy Times and would appreciate a simple way to find the article referenced and read it in its entirety, rather than taking the citation on faith.  As an example of why this would be helpful and would allow others to improve the Assata article, I looked up the first NYT reference without a link, reference number 15, "Woman Shot in Struggle With Her Alleged Victim" online and the full article here has information that helps me to better understand the circumstances of her being shot and perhaps expand a bit on it later today.  --CliffC (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As a non-subscriber, I am not in a position to be able to add links that will make things more convenient for subscribers like yourself. However, if I do pay them for this service, I cannot imagine that they make it overly hard for to find an article for which you have the full title (among other things). As a general principle, I am opposed to linking to such non-free content. For example, more Wikipedians probably use Amazon.com than any other online bookstore, but it is against policy to link directly to the amazon page where you can buy the book when citing it. Instead, the ISBN is given, which&mdash;like a full citation for a newspaper article&mdash;allows people to find the information through their preferred method. Cheers, Savidan 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I correctly assume that you would have no objection to my upgrading existing New York Times citations by including their URL and reformatting them to the standard cite news template as I run across them? --CliffC (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection, although I don't see much rationale for its use. Maybe you could explain to me the rationale for the template as well? I would also ask that you be prepared to do so for all references if it produces a formatting that is different from the current one. If it looks the same, then ignore that last part. Savidan 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the cite news template with its named parameters makes it easier to construct new references and to interpret existing ones when editing, but since the existing references have already been modified to something of a consistent appearance, I'll follow that style whenever I upgrade a reference with the URL of its online article. Where the reference being upgraded includes a page number or such I'll retain them so that nothing is lost.

For comparison of styles, here is what the article's first two NY Times references looked like last month using the cite news template.

The same references as recently reformatted.

In the recent updates these references and a few others were stripped of quotes that had been taken from the lead paragraph of the referenced article. One edit summary simply said "unnecessary", the other "quote not needed because elink is provided". As you pointed out above, not every reader has free instant access to the Times online archives or to Proquest; such quotes enhance the article by providing a terse summary of the referenced source, and they do so in the actual words of a source well known for thorough and unbiased crime coverage. --CliffC (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they do have access to the lead paragraph, so quoting the first sentence is unecessary. I noticed that in some cases you seemed to choose a sentence completely at random, and one that didn't even related to any of the uses of the reference. Being as the quotes significantly clog the notes, and do not add anything which will help the reader find the original source (there is no database in the world that searches text but not title), they should only be used when they are necessary to support the fact being referenced. I think you will see if you look at a few featured articles which cite news sources that they do not include such quotations. As for providing a summary of the article, maybe they do, maybe they don't. Most news articles aren't written in summary-style. Savidan 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that in some cases I chose "a sentence completely at random"?!? Not at all. I rechecked each citation added, and for each the quote was taken straight from the top of the lead paragraph.  Next, you say "Most news articles aren't written in summary-style."  Perhaps, but NY Times articles for the Chesimard era are, starting from her earliest mention in the April 6 1971 hotel guest robbery attempt.  All one would need do to verify this is use the Times search facility, free, and look at a few leads, also free.  In any event, I will not attempt to include such quotes here in the future, I don't want to "clog the notes" with summaries of unbiased contemporary reporting.  --CliffC (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the quote you used for reference #15 in this version of the article; I meant no disrespect, only that I could not ferret out the rationale for that selection. If you think that readers will benefit from reading the first sentence of the article, I would not object to adding a link to the nyt database (my other misgivings about linking to a commercial website mostly notwithstanding). I think that not to far in the future, we will be able to link to the full-text of these articles. Btw, NYT articles tend or order facts by what they percieve to be the order of importance instead of summarizing, which I admit is similar in some cases. Savidan 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now why the quote for reference 15 would be confusing. When I edited on October 18  (diff) with the summary "link to online copy of citation" all it did was provide an online link to a Times item already cited five times.  I thought its first paragraph with the "cop killer" phrase was a bit inflammatory, so I quoted a paragraph further down that I thought better summed up the article (which is not really an article but an opinion piece, as evinced by the word "SOAPBOX" in its title, written by a Princeton professor).


 * That said, a closer look at the version of Assata that existed immediately before my first edits (October 9, here) seems to show some sort of a past mixup, in that the reference (#13 here) does not seem to support any of the five statements citing it, possibly contributing to the confusion. To correct the situation I recommend we simply drop all citations to this reference, no harm done.  (The situation may also demonstrate that you and I are the only ones who actually read the material cited!) --CliffC (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As an aside, mind if I point out that Princeton University is not that far from the site of the shootout? Something like 30 - 40 minutes or so. Rutgers is even closer, 10-20 min. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take another look at the facts its used to support. Savidan 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly supports the bank robbery photo bit and the description of Harper's testimony. I have removed it from the summation of her trials, as the other sources do a better job of this; I believe that it was added before the others and thats why it remained. In three instances it was used instead of the williams ref. I think this is because originally the entire paragraph only had one footnote. Then the last sentence was augmented with someting from the taylor article. Then someone I think demanded a ref for each sentence, and I grabbed the wrong one from the last sentence. It checks out for the three remaining things it is used for. Savidan 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Call for local media sources
I wonder if anyone's bothered to look up the Home News or the Star Ledger from that period? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the News Tribune, another local paper (since defunct) that had reporters covering the trial.Simplemines (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Star Ledger is cited a few times. It's been a while since I did the search, but I don't remember finding much more that wasn't repetitive with what was in the NYT. How would you suggest finding the archives of these other papers online? Savidan 08:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Which pope
Does anyone know which pope is referenced by the statement "letters to the pope" as well as who was writing the letters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.249.162.120 (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was John Paul II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.125.140 (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lede
Savidan, can you give an explanation for your repeated alterations of this page?

The first paragraph had originally been written in such a way as to bury the lede, presumably for NPOV reasons. Assata Shakur is most notable for her murder conviction and its fallout. This information was buried in the middle of the second paragraph, after a first paragraph which misleadingly implies that Shakur was indicted for all crimes. As a result, the skimming reader could easily miss the murder entirely, as I did on my first readthrough of the page.

When I reread more carefully and discovered I had been misled, I altered the first and second paragraphs so as to stop hiding the murder conviction, so that future readers would not be tricked in this way.

You have repeatedly reverted my change, offering no explanation for your edits. No explanation suggests itself other than the outright *desire* to bury the lede and downplay Shakur's conviction. Can you explain why -- other than to mislead people into missing the murder conviction -- you have made these reversions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.213.239 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly the whole lede is confusing, because her 1977 conviction comes before the 1973–1977 indictments, and the 1973–1977 acquittals are followed by the phrase "Shakur was then incarcerated". Why was she incarcerated if she was acquitted?
 * What you've added is confusing because the second sentence of the first paragraph is repeated in greater detail in the final sentence of the second paragraph. Why have it in two places?
 * I recommend that the lede be reverted to the old version with some modifications. The first paragraph should be re-written to include the fact that she was convicted of murder. The second sentence (about 1971–1973) should be part of the second paragraph, and the last sentence of that paragraph should be better integrated so there's a semblance of chronology.
 * Just my thoughts. — Malik Shabazz 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 75.34.213.239, your changes are problematic. Two reasons. First, they confuse the chronology. Second, they are inaccurate. "Acquitted" was the result of some of the trials for the crimes Shakur was accused of that made her the subject of the manhunt. However, other charges were dismissed without trial, and others never even resulted in indictment. One sentence later is hardly "buried", a small price to pay to preserve the chronology and context. My version does not imply that she was indicted for all crimes; that is simply false. The intro reflects a much thought and consensus on the part of several editors. Please establish a consensus here before changing it again. Malik, you are correct in your comments about 75.34.213.239's changes. However, a reader that took the time to read the five-sentence lead would not share the confusion you note. It would be very clear why she was incarcerated. There is no need to state the same fact twice in an article that only requires a brief lead such as this one. However, I have reversed the order of two sentences in the hope of addressing the concern you raise. Savidan 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting discussion and as much as I would like to offer an opinion I am afraid that I am going to have to request some assistance before I do so. Savidan states that “The intro reflects a much thought and consensus on the part of several editors” and has reverted the edits of the anonymous 75.34.213.239 with the comment that their edits “are disimprovements that disrespect well established consensus.” Savidan then requests that 75.34.213.239 “Please establish a consensus here before changing it again.’ This is only fair.  As stated, several editors have agreed that this is the consensus for the lede therefore it is only reasonable that we address any changes on the discussion page prior to making anything that might be termed a significant edit.
 * So my question is this, is it possible that someone can point me in the right direction so that I review how this “well established consensus” was reached? I have been searching the discussion page rather diligently (as part of a subpage project that I am working on), but I have to confess that I am unable to find any definitive discussion since before the failed FAC that would even remotely qualify as a “well established consensus” for the lede. I find this curious. After all, since we are being asked to reach a consensus here on the discussion page prior to making any changes, would it not then be reasonable to expect that the “well established consensus” that we are told exists was in fact reached here on the discussion page?  I just want to make sure that any comments I make reflect a knowledge of any previous pertinent discussions. Prost! Hammersbach (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been discussed not only the talk (now partially archived) but also in the edit history. The present version is the product of much past disagreement that has been resolved for a long time. But all of this misses the point that it is facially absurd to claim that it is possible for a reasonable person to miss the lead and not realize that this person has been convicted of murder. What the IP address user was proposing was repetition and overemphasis, plain and simple. Saying the same thing twice in such a short space is bad writing. The other chronological change has been accepted and incorporated. Savidan 05:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect to the reply to my question above I would like to point out that I was asking for some assistance in locating information on how the consensus for the lead was reached, so I am not exactly sure why it also includes the pointed comments on what “misses the point”, particularly since I have offered no opinion whatsoever concerning the content, quality, or chronological order of any edit to the lede. As I stated above, I have searched the discussion page, and its archive, and I can not find where a consensus for the lede has been reached. I did find this discussion though:
 * "It also seems out of place, in the order where it is in the lead, unless (Assata) became (Tupac Shakur)'s godmother after 2005.
 * I have changed it to aunt. It is placed after the bounty in the lead not for chronological purposes, but notability reasons. As long as there is no clear causal chain between events (i.e. shootout -> trial -> prison) then they should be arranged by importance. Savidan 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you get that? WP:LEAD says "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..."; emphasis, not order. And even if it were true, what makes you think being someone's aunt is more important than "life portrayed in film and song, letters to the pope and a Congressional resolution"? --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are clearly two conflicting considerations here which the current lead is an attempt to balance. What order would you propose? Savidan 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)"
 * Despite the interesting points raised the question of order is never answered, so, how was the “well established consensus” reached? Well, certainly not through comments left here on the talk page, of that much I am sure.  Rather, the current state of the lede appears to have occurred through the back and forth editing by numerous editors, the process of  which may, or may not, constitute a consensus.  There are some things in the lede that I feel need some attention and I have been reviewing the edit history to get a better feel of how things came about, after which I will offer an opinion or two. This is not to say that I disagree with any of the “pointed comments” made above. For the most part I feel they are quite reasonable. Anyway, perhaps we can use this discussion, and the further comments that are going to follow, as a point from which to establish a citable consensus.  Prost!  Hammersbach (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Back and forth commends in edit summaries do contribute to consensus forming, much as acquiescence to a counteroffer constitutes offer and acceptance. If you are interested you can look through the edit history of the lead yourself. However, I have already responded repeatedly to the substance of the proposal, and you seem interested only in verbose procedural digressions. Savidan 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed both the discussion page and the edit history and I firmly believe that the “well established consensus” cited above does not exist. Perhaps from the “silence is consent” POV it does, but that logic in no way supports the argument that “the intro reflects… much thought and consensus on the part of several editors.” I believe that the lede is poorly written and not in accordance with WP:LEAD.  WP:LEAD states that “The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: ‘What (or who) is the subject?’ and ‘Why is this subject notable?’” Succinctly put, Ms. Chesimard/Shakur is most notable for having been convicted for the murder of Trooper Foerster.  Therefore we should never have to debate whether or not “it is facially absurd to claim that it is possible for a reasonable person to miss the lead and not realize that this person has been convicted of murder”, it should be stated right up front.  The second sentences reads “Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur was accused of several crimes, of which she would never be convicted…” and the fourth sentence reads “Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other alleged criminal incidents… resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals.” Since the alleged crimes of first period are mostly those for which she was indicted in the second, and in both sentences it basically states that she wasn’t convicted of any of them, I echo the previous editor’s comment that “saying the same thing twice in such a short space is bad writing.” Why is Assata/JoAnne’s relationship to Tupac mentioned in the lead?  It’s mentioned nowhere else in the article. Anyway, the lede needs to be rewritten.  Hammersbach (talk) 03:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Tons of people are convicted of killing cops; most of them are not even notable enough for a Wikipedia bio. Shakur is far more notable than that. She's notable for her political activity, for the manhunt based on a string of allegations that would never go to trial, for the four years of seven trials for other things that precedent the murder conviction, for escaping from prison and receiving political exile in Cuba, and for her cultural image in the hip hop community. The lead currently captures all of these things. Why don't you draft a version that you would find appropriate, and put it side by side on the talk page and then we can let others weigh in? Savidan 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not see where there is anything that can really be gained by going through the exercise of drafting a new version and comparing it to the current one which, as I have already pointed out, is flawed. Ms. Shakur is notable for many things.  I have not disputed that.  The lede captures all of these things.  I have not disputed that. What I am disputing is that the lede is well written and follows policy. 40% of this article is devoted to the shootout/trial/conviction of Ms. Shakur for the murder of Trooper Foerster.  The remainder of the article is split up among all the other notable things mentioned in the preceding comment.  Therefore, as a function of this article, it is accurate to say that she is most notable for her conviction, and in keeping with WP:LEAD it is correct that the first sentence cite this most notable fact. I propose that interested editors draft a new lede here based on the points I have made above with the intent of replacing the existing lede. Hammersbach (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an inaccuracy
The cited source for the deleted sentence in the article claims the “Joint Terrorist Task Force (sic)… issued daily bulletins…” The problem with this is that the JTTF did not come into existence until 1980. As such, both the sentence in the article and the source are inaccurate. Hammersbach (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be basing this off the JTTF Wikipedia article which (like you) does not cite any sources. I suspect that the variants of the name as well as the date of founding are unclear because these types programs coalesced from previous, less-formal efforts. Regardless, there are any number of sources that contradict your claim. While the formal JTTF may have been named in 1980, the same basic organization dates back to the 60s/70s. ("[...] consolidating the more ad hoc models of such an apparatus [...]") . Please do some actual research in the future, instead of just browsing Wikipedia, which is often inaccurate. Savidan 02:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are more sources that attest to the JTTF's efforts against Shakur: . Savidan 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The previous editor is incorrect and apparently has failed to read closely the very sources that they cite. Not a single one of them claim that the JTTF, or any form thereof, existed in June 1973 in New York, and some very clearly state that the JTTF didn’t come about until 1980. I have looked very hard for a contemporary source that used the Joint Terrorism Task Force name or a variant thereof and have found none.  None.  So I am perplexed as why the previous editor insists on keeping the name in the article.


 * As for the accusation that I “appear to be basing this off the JTTF Wikipedia article which (like you) does not cite any sources”, well, this is patently a false statement. There are no less than eight references for that article and five external links.  Of particular note, the sentence stating when the JTTF was established is directly sourced.  So I am perplexed as to why the previous editor claims the article on the JTTF does not cite any sources.


 * With respect to my doing “some actual research in the future, instead of just browsing Wikipedia, which is often inaccurate”, I would like the previous editor to know that I did not make my edits until I had done the following; 1) had a copy of Williams book in my hand, 2) verified when the JTTF was established, and 3) looked up the edit histories of the Shakur and JTTF articles to find out by whom and when the JTTF sentence was added to the Shakur article and whether or not the JTTF had listed its establishment date and that it was sourced prior to the inaccurate JTTF edit. So I am perplexed as to why the previous editor is requesting that I do "some actual research in the future".


 * On a different note, I do agree with the previous editor that Wikipedia is often inaccurate. In fact, that is very reason why I am editing this article. Hammersbach (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you have the Williams book in front of you, would you mind typing up the relevant few sentences? It would save me a trip back to the library. Are you contending that Williams does not say this? Savidan 20:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The relevant paragraph reads as follows:


 * “It was the spring of 1973 and for the last two years the nationwide dragnet for her capture had intensified each time a young African American identified as a member of the BLA was arrested or wounded or killed. The Joint Terrorist Task Force, made up of the FBI and local police agencies across the country, issued daily bulletins predicting her imminent apprehension each time another bank had been robbed or another cop had been killed.  Whenever there was a lull in such occurrences, they leaked information, allegedly classified as 'confidential,”\' to the media, repeating past accusations and flashing her face across television screens and newspapers with heartbeat regularity, lest the public forget.”


 * Clearly, I am not contending that she uses the term, “Joint Terrorist Task Force”. What I am arguing is that the JTTF did not even exist at the time Ms. Williams claims that it was issuing daily bulletins, and more.  It did not, she is mistaken.  Hammersbach (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So, in summary, we have this source and the two others above that say the JTTF issued briefings against Shakur. We have the sources that say the JTTF was formally established in 1980. We have the COINTELPRO book that explains that that establishment was "consolidating the more ad hoc models of such an apparatus" which existed even in the 1960s. Whether or not the apparatus should be called the JTTF as of 1973 seems academic at this point. We have reliable sources that said the FBI did this and a few years later they consolidated a formal task force to keep doing things of this nature. If you want to change the wording to say "what would later become the JTTF" I have no quarrel with that. However, I do not think it is reasonable to conclude that all of these published books are lying when there is a clear explanation otherwise. To delete source content on the basis of freelanced original research of this nature is problematic and should not be done in cases like this. Savidan 02:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * “We have reliable sources that said the FBI did this and a few years later they consolidated a formal task force to keep doing things of this nature.” The Cointelpro book asserts that the New York JTTF was a “formal amalgamation… consolidating the more ad hoc models of such an apparatus which had materialized in cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles in the late ‘60s.” This claim is not supported by a contemporary news account, specifically an article in the New York Times dated May 15, 1980 by Leonoard Buder titled The F.B.I. and City Police Plan Anti-Terrorist Squad.[] In this article the credit for proposing this joint venture goes not to the FBI, but to New York Police Commissioner Robert J. McGuire. This was done in response to the bombing of the Soviet Mission and the fact that police force’s investigative efforts were hampered by terrorists who operated from outside the city and state. The article further states that this would be the second joint undertaking between the FBI and the city police, the first being a successful joint anti-bank robbery task force formed in August, 1979 “in a move that was described then as a first of its kind anywhere in the country”.  The article further explains that “over the years there has been a traditional rivalry, as well as outright resentment, between the FBI and many local police agencies.”   From this, it is easy to conclude that the model for the JTTF was based on the successful joint anti-bank robbery task force, not the “ad hoc models of such an apparatus” from other cities “such as Chicago and Los Angeles”, as well as the desire to end inter-service rivalry.  Based I this I object to the wording “what would later become the JTTF”.


 * “However, I do not think it is reasonable to conclude that all of these published books are lying ...” Who said these books are lying? Not me.  I merely pointed out that the source used was factually inaccurate.  There is a difference.  For example when the previous editor wrote “the JTTF Wikipedia article... does not cite any sources.”, and this was shown to be a factually inaccurate statement, did that mean the previous editor was lying? Not necessarily.  It could just mean that they made a quick and careless examination of the article, and then started shooting from the hip.


 * “To delete source content on the basis of freelanced original research of this nature is problematic and should not be done in cases like this.” Ok, let me see if I get this straight; 1) I review the single source used by the previous editor in the article to cite actions allegedly conducted by JTTF in 1973, 2) I then click on and review the link to the JTTF article provided by the previous editor and find that the JTTF didn’t even come into existence until 1980, 3) I then review the edit history of the Shakur article as edited by the previous editor to ascertain if perhaps this information wasn’t available at the time that the edit was made (it was), and  4) I then delete the edit by the previous editor since it is factually inaccurate.  And so based on this, the previous editor feels justified in reprimanding me for “freelanced original research”? Golly... Hammersbach (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:LaidOff
This edit, I consider to have been a dis-improvement in several ways. First, it was grammatically confused. I had to blink a few times to read the new sentence. Second, it is inappropriate to state that Shakur did or did not kill the trooper as an objective fact. Her conviction is a fact, of course, but the reality is much disputed. Needless to say, even if write from the perspective that a fact tried by a jury should be taken as true (a virtue for an appellate court, but not for Wikipedia), the substantive law under which she was convicted did not require that she actually killed the trooper in fact. Third, the phrasing "Shakur's crime" is further problematic, as she was convicted of multiple crimes anyway. In an article like this one which gains much of its usefulness in explicating multiple conflicting accounts, trying to resolve the matter authoritatively in the intro is a fool's errand, no more productive than trying to do so for an article like Rashomon. Savidan 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)