Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal

User of "murderer" in the lead
In the lead sentence the description of Mumia states he’s “a political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder”. It should be the other way around…..reading “A convicted murderer who is also known for his political activism and as a journalist”.

The only reason he has a wiki page is because he killed a police officer not because of his journalism and or political activism.

This should be changed. 71.168.233.198 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. The only reason he became any of those other things is because he assassinated Daniel Faulkner. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The article explains that he was both an activist (with the Black Panthers and MOVE) and a journalist (several radio stations) before the killing. Therefore, the newly added claim in the lead paragraph, "During his incarceration, he became a political activist and journalist.", contradicts the remainder of the article.  Smcpeak74 (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He wasn't known for those things. As a "journalist", he wouldn't have passed notability, nor as an activist. He was remarkably unknown until his crimes. That's like claiming that someone became known as a baseball player because they played little league. They became known in college or pro. My edit said convicted of murder, not calling him a murderer, but was quickly reverted because the other was "stable". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's how I also understand it. But I think there are some having an issue calling the murderer exactly what he is. They have some romantic idea about an 'activist' being innocently prosecuted by the 'racist' system. Concerning Mumia, there seems to be a cult around him as well. 105.12.3.35 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Most known for the murder, yes. That doesn't translate into having to call him a murderer to writes (loose paraphrase) in the lead sentence. VQuakr (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why not lead with the biggest source of notability instead of soft selling it later? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't and won't ever know if he would have been notable if the murder hadn't happened. The status quo lead sentence flows better to me, and the proposed change is inconsistent with the chronological layout of the article. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, we won't know the "if". We DO, however, know the actual case. There is zero evidence that he would pass WP:NJOURNALIST before he murdered Faulkner. Cook made that "if" irrelevant for us. As for the "chronological layout".... when did that become the standard? Tom Selleck was a college basketball player and served in the military before he became an actor. Both are things the "could" have made him notable. Not only do those things not appear in the lead, they don't precede listing him as an actor because that is what his notability actually stems from. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The murder alone also would not be sufficient to make him notable; it's the combination of the murder and related activism, right? I think the current lead conveys that combination of circumstances: "Mumia Abu-Jamal [...] is an American political activist and journalist who was convicted of murder [...]."  That does not seem to me to obscure or condone the murder.
 * Furthermore, while it is (as I understand things) true that the murder is the single most important aspect to his notability, a description that starts with "murderer", such as the one proposed by 71.168.233.198, seems like it has a quite aggressive tone. Do reliable sources commonly describe him that way?  Smcpeak74 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A murder alone would not make him notable. This murder got enough continuing press coverage that it would be the source of notability. It has been the subject of a lot of documentaries, specials etc. Second, this discussion said "murderer", but if you look at the actual edit I made, I didn't use a term like that. So maybe we can stop focusing on a term that wasn't used in the edit? Do some RS's use the term? Probably, since one convicted of murder is a murderer, but again, that wasn't used in the reverted edit. I still disagree.....the current lead makes it sound like he was this notable guy who got convicted of murder. In reality, he was an ordinary criminal who was convicted of murder, then his activism got attention after the fact. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * None of us have a crystal ball, but the case itself is covered at Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal. If Abu-Jamal weren't notable for other reasons, we would normally cover him with a short bio there or at Murder of Daniel Faulkner, not a stand-alone biographical article. That's SOP on articles regarding notable crimes. I'm not seeing any tone issue with the status quo lead, and I disagree with the actual content of the actual proposed edit, which removed all reference to activism and journalism from the lead sentence and incorrectly states that he didn't do those things prior to his incarceration. This isn't an editorial difference of opinion: "During his incarceration, he became a political activist and journalist" is a provably incorrect statement that you put into the lead of a BLP. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, none of us have a crystal ball. That's why I said "You're right, we won't know the "if", but for some reason, you felt the need to state the obvious as if I had claimed otherwise. Your position that "if he wasn't notable for other reasons" is flawed. Even if he never did any of the activism etc, the extensive, enduring media coverage and involvement of celebrities would have passed notability. If what he was doing before his crime was not notable, and there is no evidence that it was, then the source of his notability is the murder. That should be listed first. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was prefacing my own comment, it wasn't a dig at you. No, he's notable because of the totality of his coverage in reliable sources, which includes but is not limited to coverage related to the murder. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not limited to the murder, but the murder is the primary. It's like the domestic abuse complaint against Johnny Depp. the only reason you know about it, the only reason it's in his BLP is that he was notable as an actor first, then it got coverage. Had this dude not been convicted of this murder, it's doubtful there would have been a book deal etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The article Live from Death Row has/had a similar issue. See the section in its talk page I just added. Smcpeak74 (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The source of his notability is the belief that he was wrongfully convicted, that he's been presented as a political prisoner or as someone who was a target because of his political activism. He's notable because his conviction and imprisonment became, rightly or wrongly, a focus of the way that Black people are treated in the criminal justice system in America, the lengthy history of miscarriage of justice against African American activists. The existing phrasing in the article manages to thread the difficult needle of not taking sides in Wikipedia's voice. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * He was convicted, more than once, because he was guilty of murdering Daniel Faulkner. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said that. But that's not why he's notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio. Guettarda (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguably, that is why he is notable enough. Had he only committed the murder, probably not. But the ensuing coverage, even an ABC news show reviewing all the evidence (and concluding that he did it), was because of the murder. Even the celeb involvement about the case and sentence wasn't because of his political activism or journalism, it was because of the murder. No murder= no notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I changed the section heading, because it strikes me as a BLP violation. Like every other human, he's a human first. Guettarda (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Calling someone murderer and not write anything else about him doesn't sound NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.151.140.228 (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023
' 'Beneath the Mountain: An Anti-Prison Reader,' ' published by City Lights Publishers. 3/19/2024. ISBN 9780872869264. Jane199923 (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Heart  (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Representations in popular culture - KRS One song
Rapper KRS-One made a song named "Free Mumia" in his 1995 album. Perhaps someone could add that in there if that's allowed Hasayo (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2023
This is my second time writing, I'm hoping you can submit this under his Written Works. This is a forthcoming title from City Lights Publishers to come in 2024.

Beneath the Mountain: An Anti-Prison Reader. City Lights Publishers (2024), ISBN 9780872869264. Edited by Mumia Abu-Jamal and Jennifer Black. Janesane33 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  11:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023
{{subst:trim|1=

Could you please move "Beneath the Mountain: An Anti-Prison Reader, City Lights Publishers (2024), ISBN 9780872869264” under “Written Works” on Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Wikipedia page to the very top of that list instead of the very bottom? Mumia’s previous works are listed in reverse chronological order so this change would just ensure that pattern is maintained.


 * {{done}} Xan747 (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)