Talk:George Jackson (activist)

More about George Jackson
Read more about George Jackson from Edward Bunkers "Education of a Felon".

January 2023 - consensus needed
A change was made to remove "convicted criminal" from the lead in March 2023. No reason was given by an IP editor whose sole edit here was that change. In the past 20 months since then, the change has been reverted and re-reverted multiple times. Mostly by IP editors on both sides.

Yesterday, a new reversion was made by User:Alssa1 with the edit summary: Not sure why this content was removed. I reverted that edit giving reasons: convicted criminal is encompassed in the term prisoner, leaving that word out excludes what he is most notable for. Alssa reverted that edit, merely saying No it doesn't, and also that terminology was there for an extended period before being(sic). My second reversion of the day gave supportive reasons all prisoners are convicted criminals, not all convicted criminals are prisoners. take it to the talk page which were then promptly ignored by Alssa in a third reversion just after the 24 hour period mandated by the WP:3RR with this edit summary: You're recommending a change, not I.

Alssa has anti-marxist and other right wing badges on their user page. The subject in the article is a Marxist activist. The neutral wikivoice should be prisoner for the reasons stated above. I'm offering Alssa and anyone else here an opportunity to discuss this matter here before an RfC or other escalations become necessary. Kire1975 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Between this and the Assessment Reverted topic above, it seems that has a habit of making unexplained edits that tend to diminish the notability of the political activist who is a the subject on this page. If this continues, it may be necessary to seek a WP:TBAN for this user on this page. Does  or anyone else have any thoughts? Kire1975 (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kire1975: It is troubling that there is a lack of engagement by an editor. Without discussion one cannot achieve a consensus and the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle breaks down. Considering the problem you are facing with this article; in my opinion, saying someone is a convicted criminal is probably more precise than saying they are a prisoner. One can be a prisoner without being convicted of a crime, as one being held with or without charge or while awaiting trial and be considered a prisoner. However, in this article's case, the lead also says the subject was ... serving an indeterminate sentence ..., so whether the lead mentions he was a prisoner or a convicted criminal is probably redundant. One can infer he is a prisoner from his sentence which being for armed robbery also means we can infer he was a convicted criminal, too. While the extra words can be omitted, these do lend clarify the subject's status. That said, calling the subject a criminal or a prisoner can be contentious and needs a verifiable source that says he fits this category of person. If the sources only say he was convicted of a crime or imprisoned for the crimes he was convicted of, then it is editorializing for editors to assign these labels without having the corresponding sources that back their characterizations, as this becomes editorial opinion. Contrast this with a factual statement that a person spent time in prison serving a sentence for a crime that they were convicted of, which is factual. Unfortunately, I haven't delved into the sources deeply enough, recently, to confirm things either way. Also see WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:FAPO for more thinking on facts versus opinions. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)