Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 1

=Archive 1=

The man killed a cop
There is no doubt about this. He should not be freed, he is a cold blooded murderer. I just don't understand people sometimes...

Don't jump onto hasty conclusions. The man was found with possession of the murder weapon, which belonged to him, but in accordance to encyclopedic standards this is not a marker of guilt, as is not the confession.

Evidence not allowed in trial
This article is hardly balanced, it doesn't even state exhibits of evidence that were not allowed during the trial, such as Arnold Beverly's confession. I thought we were going for neutrality here? Plus citations that haven't been included. what's up? This article needs to be cleaned up. Too much POV for Establishement Case. Establishment = Police, State and prosecuting attornies. Why do you think so many think Mumia's innocent? This is hardly covered at all. --User:205.158.160.209


 * response...
 * response...


 * That is not what the Wikipedia entry is there for. It is there to state who this person is, not discuss the trial. That is neutrality. They do not give an opinion of the person or his conviction, just state who he is and why most people would have any reason to know of him. He was tried and convicted of killing a cop. That is all they say.   It is stated that enough people think this person is innocent to get his punishment changed from execution to life in prison.


 * 216.10.167.166 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "doesn't even state exhibits of evidence that were not allowed during the trial, such as Arnold Beverly's confession." - Arnold Beverly didn't confess until 17 years after the trial was over. --CliffC 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you might mean "confession".

Taxi Cab Driver
What about driving a taxi qualifies an individual to be called a journalist and political activist? -A career in journalism and political activism does. Do some research.

Moore's statements
I'm revising the statement about Michael Moore, but I want some discussion about where Moore's statements should go under. The site which is referenced (poor in their analysis at best, most is politically driven) takes a statement from Moore in "Dude, Where's My Country?" and misinterprets it to paint Moore as being in favor of Mumia's sentence. Moore suggests that Mumia probably killed the officer, but was mostly in favor of the common reasons for releasing Mumia, unfair trial, abhorrence of the death penalty, etc. In his book, it appears he mostly tries to emphasize the reasons why Mumia doesn't deserve the sentence he had, and not that Mumia was guilty, as it was portrayed. Besides that, Stupid White Men is very informal, and most of Moore's statements are meant to inject some humor into politics. Therefore, I don't necessarily believe Moore fits in the "Detractors" section. If people agree with this, please move it. 66.251.26.115 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've updated the comments, which were taken from Moore's book Dude, Where's My Country?, page 189.

Saying that someone "probably" murdered someone else makes you a detractor of that person. I've always been suprised at how much trouble so many people on the internet have at interpreting what is humor and the intended direction of humorous comments. I happen to feel the same way Moore does (though he is such a self-aggrendizer I'm not sure he really believes in anything): that Mumia is guilty, though it is possible he was unfairly treated in some manner or other. I came to this conclusion based solely on the fact that for all the rhetoric he has spouted, he's never disputed that he was on the scene of the crime with bullet in him from the officer's gun, with a good motive (his brother was in trouble)--and his brother is staying mum as well. I can see how people get behind a romantic figure like Che, even Rodney King; I can even understand the appeal of an openly murderous man like John Dillinger, but this guy's support is just sad.


 * So basically if someone's on the scene of a crime, they're guilty, right???--Jack Upland 08:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * response: Mumia has never disputed his guiltiness because WHAT GOOD WOULD THAT DO? He realizes there's no point, and has moved on to more important issues. It doesn't really matter if he is guilty or not, that's not the point, and that is what Moore was saying. The point is he never really got the chance to defend himself properly, all sorts of evidence in his favor was not permitted to be shown. The fact is he is a great man, a great leader and he has done far more good for the world than bad.190.10.181.11 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

POV
"Although all five bullets in Abu-Jamal's gun were spent, the police didn't conduct forensic tests to ascertain whether the weapon had been fired in the immediate past (why would they neglect to carry out such a critical process in an alleged murder case of any kind?). However, there is no conclusive test to determine if a gun has been fired recently."

--You can test the temperature of the weapon, and look for gun residue on the hands of the alleged shooter, non of which were carried out. -radi0head 11:49 Mar 28, 2007 (PST)

My problem is with the "(why would they...any kind)" statement. It is an obvious POV and a stupid   one at that, the next sentence says the test doesn't exist! Which makes me wonder why the entire section on ballistics is there. Maybe it should just say something along the lines that it is unsure when the gun was fired, but no forensic tests exist to tell us what happened. I'll leave it up for discussion though.

--It's been a week or so and nobody has changed it or discussed it, so I am taking it down now.


 * "Jamal supporters claim that Jackson would later be disbarred for incompetence."
 * This is an example of wikipedia's npov policy being carried out too far, to the point where meaning gets muddled. Either this person was disbarred or he wasn't. If he was, saying so isn't biased, it's factual.

(Old discussion)
Acording to forensic evidence at the trial both Abu Jamal and Faulkner were shot with .45 calibre bullets. But the prosecution claimed the murder weapon was Abu Jamal's .38 calibre gun. (Faulkner also carried a .38).

"Forensic evidence at the trial". This was based off one of the forensic scientists notes next to the bullet. It was his best offhand guess at the caliber of the bullet.

I think there's some information worth looking at on the Amnesty International site. But I am a dyed in the wool commie pinko crazy longhair. ;-) --KQ

This is a perfect example of an article that (1) people will love to fight about, (2) people will want to be biased, but (3) we can make unbiased. The article as it stands is clearly biased in favor of the view that Mumia is innocent (or guilt is unproven). For shame. --Larry_Sanger


 * One way to do this would be to demand things be cited. It drives me crazy to read bizarre allegations, like "somebody heard the judge say the n word" with 1) no name 2) no citation and 3) the original allegation itself is hearsay. This technique can be abused. Forcing at least a reference for where it came from would limit duplicity.

- Well, it is worth noting that Amnesty International doesn't attempt to claim he's innocent; they just state that they do not believe in the death penalty. They also refuse to call him a political prisoner. Koyaanis Qatsi

I tried to make this NPOV and bent over backwards to change as little as possible. The article is still biased in his favor but now is a better encyclopedia article and less biased.

Things I changed. The description of the 2001 appeal did not mention the affirmation of the conviction, only the point about sending back for reconsideration (not overturning) the death sentence, for instance. I also added the facts of the case, 4 am, pistol registered to Abu Jamal by his side, brother being arrested, which were also not mentioned. I believe none of these facts is disputed. I also added one pro conviction web site, apparently the only one there is, but quite complete. Ortolan88 18:58 Aug 13, 2002 (PDT)


 * Worse than that, I don't think it does a good job of characterizing anyone's arguments. All the Free Mumia stuff seems to come out of that one linked article, nearly verbatim. DanKeshet

That's what comes of editing while bending over backwards. The article is much better now, improved by all three of us. Ortolan88

Yeah, I definitely think it's getting better. But jeez, there may be only one or two Daniel Faulkner memorial sites out there, but they're web design is far superior to all the Free Mumia sites put together. All the information on the case and on the man is buried deep beneath slogans. Can anybody find the man's birthdate? That seems like the most basic information to have in an encyclopaedia article. DanKeshet

As a bystander dropping by, I thought this was a pretty balanced introduction to the topic.

Looks NPOV at this point, and I think he's guilty, or at least he did something within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's definition of murder (I also think he was railroaded). I do wonder if "one of the few" in that first external link makes the Establishment look a little more beleaguered than they actually are --Charles A. L. 01:18, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, some points that occurred to me, which I will work on as I can unless someone beats me to it:


 * Association of Black Journalists or Black Journalists Association?
 * The whole paragraph about the "facts of the case" is unattributed. Did this all come from the trial transcript? Did either side dispute any of it during the trial, or does either side do so now? In particular, the text about an "ensuing struggle" does not strike me as very NPOV. I think we should at least throw in an "alleged" or two.
 * Was Faulkner shot between midnight and 4 am of December 9, or was he shot before midnight and Abu-Jamal arrested the next morning? Pistol "at his side" - in his possession, or was he unconscious, or what?
 * Was Jackson disbarred? When, under what circumstances, for what reason?
 * Witness statement item has no counterclaim; do Abu-Jamal's detractors offer one?
 * One item says the prosecution gave "specific, relevant reasons" for each challenge. Reasons need not be given for peremptory challenges (hence the name). Were they peremptory or not?
 * "Faulkner was shot with a .38" item refers, three times, to "the bullet". How many times and where was Faulkner shot, and how many bullets were found in his body? This article implies he was shot at least twice; the Faulkner article says 5 times.
 * How many times and where was Abu-Jamal shot? Were bullets found in him, and if so, did they match Faulkner's gun?
 * What happened to William Cook while all this shooting was allegedly going on?
 * More details and/or examples of the non-conflicts and non-holes would be good to have; the item is rather sparse as it stands.
 * Federal judge ordered in 2001: what was the judge's name? What was the result? It was nearly two years ago, something must have happened by now.
 * I seem to recall reading somewhere that Abu-Jamal never denied having committed the murder. Any hard data on this?

Tualha 01:41, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I do not know what the article looked like when you read it and found that it was biased in favor of Jamal. As I read it now it is exactly what I would expect from people who write that there are "only one or two Daniel Faulkner memorial sites out there", "but they're (sic!) web design is far superior to all the Free Mumia sites put together". Interesting that you still managed to provide more links propagating the case against Jamal and even took the amnesty page out. I especially disliked the ending, so I changed it. I still think that it is pathetic to bring up the pro-Jamal arguments first only to refute them one by one afterwards. I added some more, maybe you can try and counter them as well. Does it make sense to give every idiot the right to change encyclopedia entries? Where do you usually get your information, at "free" republic.com? SONG PARODY: Crying (frying Abu-Jamal) freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/147714/posts What should happen to Mumia Abu-Jamal? ('Fry Mumia,' Freep this Poll) freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/593435/posts Mar 4, 2004


 * "I do not know what the article looked like when you read it and found that it was biased in favor of Jamal." Excuse me? Were you replying to my comments, anonymous one? I did not say I found it biased in favor of Jamal. Tualha 01:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like this article a lot as being about as non-POV as you can be. I try to make as many of my contriutions as non-POV as I can, but don't know as I have ever done this well. Rlquall 3 June 04


 * N P O V !! The article may have been unbiased 2 1/2 years ago, but it sure isn't anymore. The evidence introduced at the trial should be located in the trial section.  Any information not introduced at the trial doesn't belong there.  Two paragraphs in the "trial" section about William Singletary is absurd, since he never testified at the trial.  The obvious non-neutrality show by starting "Another witness...".  Why "another", since he had nothing to do with the trial.  And in two paragraphs about Singletary, it's not mentioned how incoherent his claims were.  Abu Jamal's own attorney said "We believe his recollection was not entirely accurate."  At best, Singletary belongs in a "controversy" section, to conform with the neutrality principles of Wikipedia. Tom NM 13:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Just found this page today. I have updated it adding details concerning some of the specific objections the defense has concerning conflicting witness statements, and have added detail to the summary of the alleged confession, including note of the William Pate affidavit.

Political prisoner
As far as the evidence goes, Mumia Abu-Jamal is a political prisoner if there ever was one. Please don't forget that political prisoners for example in the USSR did also get trials – trials in which typically evidence for them (like Pamela Jenkins and Veronica Jones) wasn't admitted; judges ruled partial; and so on. Highly typical for such cases, his involvement with a political organisation (the "Black Panthers") were held against him. In addition, the police officers involved are known to have fabricated evidence in other cases.

Mumia himself was obviously shot, but obviously not after the crime by the victim (as the bullet-path shows), so there either has to be another killer involved or Mumia has been shot by the police officer before he shot himself, in which case it couldn't be murder (but more likely, self-defence). In either case, there's no plausible scenario for Mumia murdering the officer. In addition to that, another man has pleaded guilty to the murder Abu-Jamal was „convicted“ for – if such a trial deserves the name „conviction


 * I agree that he is a political prisoner in the spirit of Solzhenitsyn. One was incarcerated for a joke about state leaders moustache, one was for a shooting joke. The gun was planted on him. Witnesses bribed on the spot. His recorded confessions twice were planted near his mouth. Ehh, I just dunno dude, how many honest people are there who get repeated attention from police?

There are only a few problems with the argument made above: 1) Abu Jamal, unlike the political prisoners in the former Soviet Union, has been convicted and sentenced not by a judge, but by a jury of his peers. He has a right to appeal and has been doing so for twenty years; 2) i can't speak intelligently about the "bullet path" controversy, but your assertion that since, supposedly, the officer fired first Abu Jamal couln't be tried for murder shows a risible misunderstanding of American self-defense laws ( i.e. as long as the officer was acting within the law there is NO cicumstance under which Abu Jamal could shoot him and be legally justified); 3) no one has "pleaded guilty" to the murder for which Abu Jamal was convicted; "pleaded guilty" implies that the man was charged by a court of law, which he wasn't.Levi P. 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a case like this would be called a „political imprisonment“ of a dissident everywhere in the world – only in the U.S., there don't seem to be „political prisoners“, just as there are no "dissidents" .... I will introduce a sentence in that direction if there are no salient objections made here next week or so. --Fountaindyke 19:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Speaking of lack of evidence, where is evidence that he is a political prisoner? Not only is there nothing to back this up, but it isn't even logical. Other black journalists and activists have criticized the government. Why would there be a conspiracy against this one man? And why would he be targeted in such a way that left a police officer dead and him alive and well enough to publish articles from prison? This is absurd. A political prisoner would never be conducting radio shows from his cell and you know it.


 * I remember something about Mumia not being political active at the time of the shooting - he was just a taxi driver, not a journalist any more. Hmm, I'd need to look that one up. Flammifer 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the issues raised by this person (and related information) do lend atleast a partial case for the argument that Abu-Jamal is a political prisioner. To say this is "absurd" because other domestic critics of the U.S. government are not jailed is a non-point. Other countries (I won't name name's) which are almost universally cited as holding many (even thousands) of political prisioners often have some critics who are not in jail for various reasons. Conviction of political prisioners for non-political offenses is extremely common (if not the norm).


 * The fact of the matter is that at the time (although maybe not as much as in the years preceeding) Abu-Jamal had belonged to groups which it has since been proven were persecuted and targeted by government agents working in secret. While this does not directly imply some sort of government conspiracy behind his Abu Jamal's jailing, it is undeniable that there is a case that it could have been and to ignore this would be inconsistant with the many other Wikipedia articles about political prisioners of other nations whose innocence of an accused crime cannot actually be proven either.

What I wanted to say is: I think he would have got another trial and another sentence if he wasn't a "Black Panther". Remember that, according to Amnesty International, quotes from his early days as a political activist were held against him (see the last sentence of the following Amnesty International statement: http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/usa/document.do?id=7FC249A275DAADCA8025687F00428638). This quotes may have been militant (stating his desire to fight against the police) but are not any kind of evidence in a murder trial.

I don't think the case is clear-cut (and therefore, I take back the "if there ever was one" of my first statement). Surely there's no political conspiracy against Abu-Jamal, but I think he would have been aquitted if there had not been the will to find him guilty. Remember that no-one can be convicted for murder if there's a "reasonable doubt" as to him being guilty. In Abu-Jamal's case, there certainly is reason for doubt.

--Fountaindyke 10:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't confuse your ability to doubt - based material from media presentations developed over many years and under various standards and motivations with the legal standard of "reasonable doubt" based on the legally admissible evidence presented at a specific point in time, his trial. Rmhermen 16:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect that if he had not been a black panther, nobody would have heard of the affair and there would be no media coverage like what he got. No Wikipedia article, for a start :) Flammifer 18:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Object to seeing him punished for killing a police officer"?
Who is this "third group of activists" that "object to seeing him punished for killing a police officer"? Sounds made-up to me. Taco Deposit 02:03, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Surely this is a reference to groups that object to special laws regarding the killing of police officers, making the punishment more stringent than for the same offence against someone else. Having said that, as far as I know Pa. also has a death penalty for the first degreee murder of private citizens, and I don't know of any punishment more stringent than that.

My reading of the transcript was that Mumia wanted John Africa as his defense counsel, not as a witness. Can anyone refute this? Excellent NPOV writing, I'm sure it wasn't easy.

Points re the current version: Tualha 01:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What is the source for the stenographer's claim? Who is she?
 * The paragraph beginning "Conflicting testimony and missing witnesses" sounds like a quote from an Amnesty International report, because of this part: "However, neither of these statements have been seen by Amnesty International". Is it? It should be quoted and attributed, if so.
 * Many of the questions I raised last November still have not been addressed.

Registered firearm?
"Abu-Jamal was arrested at 4 a.m. with a pistol registered in his name at his side."

What's the source for this? The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doens't have firearm registration. -- Spock
 * It shows up on sites supporting Abu-Jamal. Perhaps a concealed weapon permit. Rmhermen 15:47, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * what is meant by the quoted statement anyway? I read it and was confused as to whether the (persumably legally owned firearm) was simply in his house/nearby when arrested or whether he actually had it on his person when arrested. Also, is it claimed (or proven) that this gun was the one which shot the police officer? some clarification in the article might be desirable.

There was no question that a Charter Arms .38 had been lawfully purchased by Mumia about 2 years before Faulkner wasw murdered and that it was the same gun he was carrying that night in a shoulder holster. Coastda Sept. 3, 2006

What about Anthony Jackson? The 'Objections to Jamal's trial' section and the 'Support for Jamal's trial section have information that is completely opposite. Shouldn't it be possible to resolve this? Shouldn't there be reliable background information about Anthony Jackson somewhere? Apol0gies 17:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sabo appointed lawyer Anthony Jackson, who had never defended a client in a murder case, to defend Jamal."
 * "Abu-Jamal's lawyer (Anthony Jackson) was in fact highly experienced, having served in twenty murder cases..."

"Sabo appointed lawyer Anthony Jackson, who had never defended a client in a murder case, to defend Jamal. Jackson, who was allowed only $1500 to analyze evidence and to hire expert witnesses, was later disbarred." conflicts with "Abu-Jamal's lawyer (Anthony Jackson) was in fact highly experienced, having served in twenty murder cases, with only six convictions and no executions prior to the Abu-Jamal case. Furthermore, he was chosen by Abu-Jamal after specific recommendation by his friends at the Black Journalists Association. Receipts indicate his defense spent $13,000, not $1500."

Chopped things up and reorganized
I chopped up the long lists of objections and points in support. OK, it's a big change on a debated page, but I think it makes things easier to read. I have hardly touched the actual text of the points made, I just moved them around.

The titles would probably need changing, I'm not that happy with them. Ideally, everything should be melted down in something not as pro- and con-. Adding more granularity would be good, but that would require actually reworking the points.

Hmm, I'll go back and do exactly that :) Flammifer 15:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, did just about that. This page still needs some serious reworking, how about a "needs attention" flag ?

I generally left the original statemetns as they were, only moving text around and adding some "supporters claim that" and "detractors answer that" here and there. I don't want to start an edit war =) However, as the page is now, there is some redundant information, and things could take some rewriting.

I also feel the "index" table is a bit too long now, but I think the content is more navigable that way. ny ideas on how better to organize it ? I don't know what's the best way to present controversies :-P Flammifer 16:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peabody Award
I'm unsure of the status of Mumia's Peabody Award: as far as I have known, it is not just an urban legend, though the article says that it is a common misconception that he won one; is this true? I googled Mumia +"Peabody Award" and got several hits, including many that seem rather definitive. For this reason, I took out the (seemingly POV) sentence about this being untrue, and added as much info about the peabody he allegedly won (1980, for covering the Pope's visit). Any further elucidation would be appreciated. jglc | t | c 14:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A search in the peabody awards archives ( - hmm, should we have a list on wikipedia ?) doesn't find him. Since I find some claims on the net that "some claim he won a peabody, but it's crap", and no claims of "some say he didn't win a peabody, but he did", I'll assume that most such claims are just people repeating what they heard without checking things up (or, in some cases, probably expecting the readers to believe them). I'll say in the article he didn't receive one. Flammifer 14:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bullet points, "supporters say", "opponents say"
I'm trying to break up the format of lotsa bullet-point statements starting with "Jamal's supporters claim" and "Jamal's opponents say", etc. I don't think it makes the article very readable; plus we shouldn't just put "opponents say" in front of every statement that's harmful to Mumia's case, and "supporters say" in front of every one that supports it. It should be possible to have something as factual as possible.

I think that http://www.danielfaulkner.com/ contains a lot of information and as far as aI can tell it's the most complete resource on the trial, and has many references to the transcripts, though it's not exactly NPOV.

Maybe we should integrate direct links to the trial transcripts ? Flammifer 11:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

COINTELPRO
This seems to be quite a good NPOV article on a controversial topic. Bravo! I've changed the wording re COINTELPRO from this
 * Jamal's supporters claim that the FBI ran the COINTELPRO program whose purpose was to harass, disrupt and destroy unpopular political groups such as the Black Panther party. Since Jamal had taken a high profile position with the party as a teenager, he could have been a target.

to this
 * Jamal's supporters say that since Jamal had taken a high profile position with the Black Panther Party as a teenager, he could have been a target of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, whose purpose was to harass, disrupt and destroy unpopular political groups such as the BPP.

In the original version, the implication was that there's a lot of controversy about about COINTELPRO's purpose, but in fact I don't think there's any such controversy. Sure, there's controversy about a lot of aspects of COINTELPRO, but not about its basic purpose.--Bcrowell 04:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good move, it makes much more sense that way. Whatever controversy there is around COINTELPRO, it should be on the COINTELPRO article. Here the question is how much this has to do with the present case. Flammifer

Mumia denial
For what it's worth, I think this article is excellent, about as neutral as can be. Two points: 1) I have seen a lot of discussion online claiming that Mumia has consistently refused to maintain his innocence. That is, he has never said, "I did not shoot Faulkner. It was/must have been somebody else." But I have seen other sites that claim this is bs, and that Mumia has claimed he is innocent, rather than somehow not guilty on the basis of a technicality. I would love it if someone with more knowledge than I could get to the bottom of this. 2) I think there should be a bit more mention of who shot Mumia earlier in the article, and whether it is clear that Faulkner shot him. I would do it myself but I'm a newbie and I don't want to mess it up.

- IronDuke

Updates?
Does anybody know the current status of the appeals about his resentencing?

needs a summary
Nowhere in the article does it actually summarize what happened at the murder of daniel faulkner. IT reports the witness statements, and plenty about the trial, but there's no summary of the crime itself. Could someone write one up, identifying which facts are in dispute along the way? Night Gyr 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC) It's being appealed to the Third District court by both the defense and the prosecution.

Category:American murderers
This category, for the purpose of this article, is POV. Whether or not he is a murderer is a highly controversial claim, and for this article to be NPOV we shouldn't be passing judgement through the use of this category. -- LGagnon 04:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He was convicted of murder. For all legal purposes, this defines him as a murderer. Even were one to set that aside, in his own statements, he has essentially admitted to murder (specifically of police officers, in threats against jail guards), if not the murders he is convicted of. -RannXXV 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This would make it sound like wikipedia subscribes to a Federal Government idea that, they are absolutely correct, which is something I see strongly that seprates wikipedia from other sources. With as much international outcry for Mumia Abu-Jamal, I see it absoutely ridiculous to place him on a list of "American Murders". This seems like a very biased attempt to further label Abu-Jamal based on opinion. I recommend that he be taken off the list until a solution is resolved.-asad112 08:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He was convicted of murder by a jury, which was subsequently upheld after numerous appeals. There's nothing biased about categorizing him as such. --204.152.176.70 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All of which cases have produced numerous discrepancies. --asad112 16:15, 17 February 2006 (CST)


 * Regardless of any supposed discrepancies, he was convicted of murder in the first degree. He is currently in prison for said crime.  Unless his conviction is overturned, the categorization is accurate.  You are making a political point by removing the category.  He was convicted, he's an American.  If he's ever exonerated, then the category would no longer be applicable.  As it stands today, it is valid. --204.152.176.70 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. How you feel does not change the facts.  He is an American citizen convicted of murder by a jury and it has been upheld numerous times.  I would argue that he should have been fryed a long time ago but I am not pushing that on this page.--Looper5920 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The catagory "American Murderers" implies that one, whether convicted or not, engaged in murder. Being convicted of murder does not always mean one is a murderer due to the fact that current justice systems are not perfect. If Abu-Jamal is indeed incocent then then regardless of whether any future appeal succeeds, he is not a murderer. As such, I believe the catagory should be limited to only those people for whom their is generally little or no digreement that they commited murderer. It would probebly be better to have a catagory such as "Americans Convicted of Murder" for a case like this.  --Cab88 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree, Americans convicted of murder seems like a much more suitable category for this. I would also like to see some concencus on this. --asad112 00:01, 19 February 2006 (CST)
 * Strongly agree with removing the category. Whether or not Jamal is a murderer is precisely the controversial issue here. To place him in that category is to make the statement that one side of a controversial issue is objectively true. That is a biased interpretation and goes against WP policy. Freddie deBoer 04:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I vote that we should do away with the category in every single instance. I mean, unless the police actually catch an individual in the act of murder, and verify it to the public with documented visual proof, we can never really know for sure, right?  I say forget that Ted Bundy confessed - the police forced him.  They planted all the evidence that was used to convict him.  And after brutalizing him when he was incarcerated and waiting on death row, they told him the location of other bodies and made him publicly admit to those crimes as well.  Also, any eye witnesses against him obviously lied.  The same goes for Manson.  And Son of Sam.  And Dahmer - it is so obvious that those bodies were the remains of unsolved murder victims that were planted by the police. So, I fully agree, not only should we remove the category for Abu-Jamal, but for every American who was convicted of the crime of murder.  In fact, let's delete it from Wiki altogether.  Consensus?  --68.80.241.225 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, dude, we either believe in WP:NPOV or we don't. What if, before her death and autopsy, we placed Terry Schiavo in a category called "People in a Persistent Vegetative State"? What if we put Abortion in a category called "Crimes Against Humanity"? In each instance you're deciding which side of a controversial issue is correct by putting them in that category. You are taking as an assumption the very issue that is controversial. That violates the policies of WP regardless of Jamal's guilt or innocence. You don't have to think Jamal is innocent to think that putting him in the category is a very bad idea.

I'm recommending an RfC. If there isn't much objection I'll put one together tomorrow. Freddie deBoer 07:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point that was being made is that if we used a similar line of reasoning of that used by Abu-Jamal's supporters (that he was framed - the very heart of the controversy), then the objection to this type of categorization can be applied to almost every single person categorized as an American murderer. What ultimately defines an individual as a murderer? How can we say that this person who was convicted of murder is a murderer but this other person who was also convicted isn't? If, after numerous appeals fail due to incriminating evidence against the defendant, is that person a murderer even though he/she maintains his/her innocence? And what of the cries of police/prosecutor malfeasance? If there were undeniable, concrete evidence of his innocence, wouldn't he have been freed long ago? Abu-Jamal has had more than his day in court - it's been nearly 25 years and he has lost every single one of his appeals - from district courts right up to federal appeals. Does this fact have any weight, or is it, as Abu-Jamal supporters would have us believe, continuing evidence of a vast conspiracy conducted by local, regional, state, and federal officials to frame Abu-Jamal?

I agree that if we remove this categorization because it is deemed PoV (despite a conviction that was upheld after numerous appeals), then we should do away with the category and delete it from Wiki altogether, for I hold that it would be PoV in nearly every case so long as one person objects. --204.152.176.70 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do see your point. It just seems that the category is particularly controversial in this case. I mean there are a significant number of people who believe Jamal is innocent, and I don't know if that is the case with Dahmer, Bundy, etc. What do people think about RfCing? Is that appropriate? Any feedback from anybody? Freddie deBoer 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. However, whether or not there are a significant number of people who believe a convict is innocent should not be what guides the decision to apply the category to said convict.  This is seemingly a tough nut to crack.  I agree that there should be a category called "Americans convicted of murder".  And if this is the case and the category is added, I'm unsure as to what the criteria would be for categorizing an individual as an "American murderer" as opposed to categorizing him/her as an "American convicted of murder".  If the tag is removed from Abu-Jamal without giving credence to the multiple other Wiki entries that also carry the same tag, then the action seems to carry bias.  Suggestions? --68.80.241.225 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The contentiousness of his conviction is not a good argument for keeping him out of the category. The logic that keeps him in the category is the same logic that (rightfully) keeps O.J. Simpson out.  One is a convicted murderer, the other is not.  American murderers ought not be People a majority of wikipedians believe committed murder.


 * And if we ARE going to use the American murderers category, I'd like to propose we also add him to the subcategory Americans who have murdered police officers, which, not coincidentally, I have just created (for an unrelated pair of articles).  Ford MF 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Information
Anyone have any they want to add to this article? Ckessler

Category:Prisoners sentenced to death
Seeing as how Abu-Jamal's death sentence was commuted to life in prison, this should probably be removed until the situation changes (if indeed it does change). --204.152.176.70 15:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Other Points PoV
Please stop inserting pro-Mumia PoVs into this section of the article. It's only going to be reverted. --usmcginn 06:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

re: summary
I agree it needs to begin with a summary of the crime. When I read that Mumia was "nearly comatose" I didn't know why until I read further down that he had been shot as well.69.107.138.62 03:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

His name?
In formal writing, how should his name be given in shortened form? Here he is variously given as "Mumia", "Abu-Jamal", and "Jamal". It seems to me that "Abu-Jamal" has been used in newspaper articles. BillFlis 15:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He made that name up. but abu-Jamal. I HIGHLY doubt that there will ever be biographical content. It's just sensationalism taken up as a pet cause by people who feel the need to rally with some random Nation of Islam guy (and, by the way, is not a branch of Islam) but whatever.

He wasn't Muslim or Nation of Islam.

Major re-write
I have just completed a major re-write of this article. What I have mostly done is reorganize the existing material so that it is more readable and flows in a logical order. There remains, however, a great deal to do:


 * Very few of the "facts" given in the article are cited. I have no doubt that many of them can be linked to one or more of the sources listed at the end of the article, but I have no idea where to even begin looking.


 * There is almost nothing in the article about Abu-Jamal, other than the murder case and its sequelae. It seems to me that a biographical article ought to have at least some information about other aspects of the subject's life.  I have tried googling for this, but come up pretty much empty.  I'm talking about basic information:  Where was he born?  Where was he educated?  What happened in his life prior to the murder trial?  I see some hints in the article that he may have been associated with MOVE and/or the Black Panther Party, but again, there's no real development of this information, nor are there any cites.


 * When I did my googling, I was appalled at the apparent complete lack of any remotely unbiased sources of information concerning Abu-Jamal. Everyone who has anything on the web seems to have gravitated to one extreme or the other.  Are there no neutral sources on this topic at all??? Brandon39 07:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Major change proposal
First, Brandon, let me say that you did a lot of good work and the article is certainly much better. However, it still has some problems, most of which you mention yourself. It goes without saying that the article is quite lightly sourced; the first link shows up in Section 4. Also, this article is completely overwhelmed with the controversy surrounding Abu-Jamal and his trial, and says nothing about him.

So I propose the following: We create another article (or maybe several) containing most of the information here. For example, one could imagine having an article entitled Criticism and support of the Abu-Jamal conviction, or perhaps Controversies surrounding the Abu-Jamal conviction containing the content of Sections 2.2, 2.3, 3, 4, 5, and maybe 7 and 8. Then this article would be shorter and only contain uncontroversial, factual evidence of MAJ's life etc. The other article could concentrate on the controversies.

Either way, one needs to add about 300 fact tags to this article.

I was going to do this now, but I realize that it's such a major edit that I should run it by the talk page. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions concerning such a move? --Deville (Talk) 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it! I thought about the need for the fact tags, but it just seemed like more fun than I was willing to allow myself.  I think your notion of splitting the article is an excellent one.  Have at it!  Brandon39 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Done --Deville (Talk) 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Major split of article
I have split a lot of the information from here to Controversies surrounding the Mumia Abu-Jamal conviction. See Talk:Controversies surrounding the Mumia Abu-Jamal conviction for some more explanation. The idea here was that this article should be a short, concise biography of MAJ and an overview of the issues and controversies raised by his conviction. The back-and-forth concerning all of the controversies can be moved to the other page; this will make both articles shorter and easier to maintain. [All of the POV warring can be over there now. ;-) ]

As far as changes, I think these two articles still need quite a bit of work. There are a lot of unsubstantiated claims, and a lot of contradictions as well. However, I didn't want to make any changes during the splitting, as that would confuse what I did. I now expect that I (and of course others) will make a lot of changes to these two articles.

Also, I added all of the links that were on this article to the other article as well. It's hard to tell what is referenced where, so I put all the sources on both. As more work is done to these articles, more care will be taken to which sources are needed to back up which claims. I expect that this article will have fewer sources when all is said and done, and the other article will have more.

I welcome any comments on this major move.--Deville (Talk) 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the split, I've rewritten and refactored all of the sections in this article. One glaring ommission in this article as it stands is that there is no information concerning the 2001 appeal and overturning of the death sentence.  One might imagine we'd mention that in the article.  If anyone has any information or knowledge of this I heartily encourage you to add it in that section.


 * A lot of what I did was reorder and summarize. For example, in the description of the trial, the narrative went from eyewitnesses, to physical evidence, back to eyewitnesses, etc.  It's more concise now, and I've not really removed any content. --Deville (Talk) 02:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good move, though a shorter title may be better :P Maybe just Mumia Abu-Jamal conviction or Mumia Abu-Jamal trial? (though, OK, the Terry Shiavo page also has long unwieldy subpages) Flammifer 04:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be, I tend to agree that the title is a bit long. OTOH, I checked similar articles and this seems to be the standard, and I couldn't think of a shorter way to contain all of the relevant information.  I think the title should contain the word "controversy" or similar, since this is the purpose of the article.  But I'm very open to another title if you have any suggestions. --Deville (Talk) 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments by User:86.130.88.117
What was put on this site is wrong, Jamal came over to see whether his brother was ok and was not having his rights abused because he was black. It was shown that Faulkner was shot once and not at close range. The caliber of the gun on that killed faulkner was a .44 and the gun jamal was holding was a .38. Also eye-witnesses on the scene said that the man who they saw shoot Officer Faulkner did not even re-semble Jamal, and the eye-witnesses said that story originally, but later changed their story to what it says on this page. They then later said that they did this because the police had threatened to arrest and imprison them for perverting the courts of justice, which was untrue, but they could do it anyway. Then there is something else, Mamia Abu Jamal is black but how many black jurors were there? Only 2. This is now a crime but it is not now. This could have easily been a set up, and it would have worked out for the mayor at that time who was a racist. So how did he get away with this is in a city that is 40% black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.88.117 (talk • contribs)

The story about the gun being a higher caliber came from a comment from somebody who jsut happened to llok at the wound and say oh that looks like a 44 did that. When in fact a formal autopsy had not yet been performed. It was later confirmed that a 38 was that bullet that fatally shot Faulkner. I think you need to read more about this story from a fact based site and not from the crazy conspiracy theory ones.

Facts are. 1. Mumia's brother is getting arrested. 2. Mumia Shoots Faulkner. 3. Faulkner shoots Mumia, seriously injuring him until police arrive and find his gun(spent shells and all) next to him.

I don't know how much easier it is than that.

also I love my shirt that says "Mumia shouldn't be in a 6 x 8 foot cell, he should be six feet closer to hell". Just like that shirt.

citation for the section "Court proceedings and controversies surrounding the 1982 trial"
There are a lot [citation needed] statements in this section. It sounds like these are transcript quotes and it would be nice for them to say as much, or even have a link to a page with it. I think its kind of important so I've put a tag on the article to say as much. 69.249.209.253 06:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Biased and irrelvant external links
Having pro or con links near the end is a fine use. However, I've noticed a lot of political garbage with little or no relevance to the matter at hand. For example, links to Amnesty International and the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty... not in relation to Mumia or the topic at hand. Just in general. Can we please keep this focused? --AWF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.47 (talk • contribs) 15:16, May 18, 2006

About artist support
I thought all the stuff at the bottom that was removed in the last edit was relevant, so I put it back.

I think just saying Mumia has become a controversial issue does not mean much without supporting it. Mentioning which artists and organizations have come out in Mumia's defense helps give the assertion that his sentence is very widely protested some ground.

--66.61.63.109 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (H.M.S.)

On removing big addition by 12.205.44.59
I took the liberty of reverting the additions by the IP address. They read as extremely POV and out of place, and moreover are a very close copy of this web page, so it is not surprising that they are POV. --Deville (Talk) 01:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, don't know if it is the same person, but again a bunch of POV copyvio was added, being a direct copy of this. Of course, I reverted. -- Deville (Talk) 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by Steve Argue
Steven Argue, you've been adding controversial material to the article, and Deville has been trigger-happy with reverting. We should probably discuss the changes here before going through an edit war. I don't think adding indiscriminate "according to the prosecution" throughout the article is really an improvement. For example:


 * According to the prosecution, on the morning of December 9, 1981, Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop of a vehicle driven by William Cook, Abu-Jamal's younger brother.

... does anybody dispute that Daniel Faulkner was shot and killed? Isn't this a bit like saying, "According to the prosecution, Washington DC is the capital of the United States of America"?


 * While he was receiving this treatment the prosecution claimed that Mumia Abu-Jamal acknowledged that he shot Daniel Faulkner.

... so the prosecution was in the hospital too, and said that?

Note that a lot of the material you added might fit better on Controversies surrounding the Mumia Abu-Jamal conviction. (I personally think it might be better to name that article Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, but that's another story.) flammif e rtalk 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I moved that page.


 * Note to Steven Argue: A lot (all?) of the material you added should be on that page - in fact, it most likely already is, in one form or another. That was the case before the name change too. So, what you wrote will probably be deleted/moved. It would also be nice to:
 * Discuss edits on the talk page first
 * Use edit summaries to say why you're adding/deleting something.
 * That's how things work on controversial pages. Talking a lot and editing a little is probably better.


 * Also, I think that the best way to improve these pages would probably be to add more, many more references to the court transcripts. flammif e rtalk 12:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed on all points. As I claimed eons ago, my plan is eventually to look at these court transcripts and see what is what, and at the least get rid of all those fact tags.  Perhaps I'll get some time soon to do this, and maybe it's best if several of us do this. -- Deville (Talk) 14:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good, I can help, though not much immediatly; I'll be a bit freer in a few days. flammif e rtalk 15:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, I'll make the changes you mention, specifically removing a] "the prosecution claims" before uncontested statements and b] remove or move information which belongs in the other article. -- Deville (Talk) 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No the prosecution was not in the hospital. That is not the point. The defense has produced evidence that there was no confession in the hospital. If you like we could change the wording of the edit from "prosecution" to the witnesses that the prosecution produced. I think this would be a good revision.

I think the edits that I have made should remain where they are at, since they only begin to answer some of the bias and anti-Mumia falsehoods that are contained on the page. Without my edits the page lacks even the semblance of objectivity. -Steven


 * They've apparently been mostly removed or reworked.


 * Fighting against falsehoods is good, but just presenting an opposing view is not always enough. For example, having a page on the Sky saying that the sky is green in one paragraph and that it's white in another is not really ideal. So, for similar reasons, additional information about the trial should go in Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and maybe in the section about the trial on this article, but the discussion should be on the trial page, with a summary over here. Also, providing sources (such as references to he trial transcripts) will considerably improve the pages.


 * Making a fair and balanced page is not easy work. flammif e rtalk 09:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Presently the page Mumia Abu-Jamal claims the sky is green, presents factually incorrect arguments that the sky is green as facts, and restricts evidence that the sky is blue (in a very limited and unprofessional way) to the ghetto of a different page. This editorial policy, as I have stated, lacks even the semblance of objectivity. -Steven

After finals next week I will prepare an entire reworked version for Mumia Abu-Jamal that will not contradict Wikipedia’s standards of Neutral Point of View as the current standing prosecution version does. Unlike that biased version, numerous references will be provided as well. -Steven


 * In general, I'd recommend against rewriting controversial articles as a whole, it's fairly likely it'll get reverted, or at least lead to a fair amount of conflict, NPOV tags, etc. Discussing what problems you see in the article first is recommended. At least, reworking section-by section, rather than reworking the article as a whole, is a safer choice.


 * The Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal page was seperated not in order to make a "ghetto" for contradicting ideas, but because the main page was becoming too damn long.


 * Also, please note that Neutral Point of View is not the only standard on Wikipedia; Verifiability and Reliable sources are important too. flammif e rtalk 14:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture Removal
I believe the picture "Free Mumia" is biased towards his defense and should not be posted. --Acp 1987 03:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, this is better that you're discussing on the Talk page. However, one should look at this picture closely, and note that although the original painter (stenciler, whatever) wrote "Free Mumia", someone came along later and wrote "Cop Killer" on top of it.  Actually, this is probably as fair an assessment of the current debate as one could wish for!  I'm certainly open to debating whether this picture should be in or out, but I don't see it as biased because of that.  Let's leave it in until we have discussed further, and perhaps other editors would like to comment. --Deville (Talk) 11:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)





I think the picture's fine, though maybe a better one could be found. I prefer the one on the trial page, though some diversity is good. My problem would mostly be that the pic isn't very pretty :P But then, the article doesn't have enough pictures. flammif e rtalk 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Police informants and prostitutes
I removed the line

":that [White] was later revealed to be a police informant[]; "

from the article, and here is why. First, for the record, the link is to a advocacy site. This does not make it inherently unreliable, but it is suspicious. But in any case, this link was used as a reference for the assertion that Cynthia White was a police informant, and the article explicitly states that Jenkins testified in court that White was a police informant. However, I went to the transcripts, see here. As far as I can tell, this is the only testimony that Jenkins gave in any of the trials or appeals. I just read through the entire thing, and nowhere does she claim that White was a police informant. What she does claim is that she was a police informant while she was working as a prostitute, but she does not assert that White was an informant. Because of this, I removed the link and the assertion. If anyone can find a source to back this up which doesn't contain a false assertion, I'm game. --Deville (Talk) 23:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As you admit yourself, it does say she was working as an informant: "What she does claim is that she was a police informant while she was working as a prostitute." I am adding the link back on. -Steven Argue


 * Sorry, I think you misunderstood me, but this is understandable because my statement was ambiguous. So, let me be more specific:  Jenkins never testified that White was a police informant.  Jenkins testified that she herself was a police informant.  For example, go to the link I mentioned and search for the word "informant" and read the context of all of her testimony.  Again, Jenkins never testified that White was a police informant.  In light of this, the link should go.


 * Actually, in any case, it turns out that the "summary" we are supposed to have in this section has grown beyond all bounds and now is almost as long as the article it is meant to summarize! We need to remove almost all of the information which is in this section and merge to the other article.  There are two reasons for this:  first, a big proportion of the information is duplicated, and second, the assertions have very inconsistent sourcing (e.g. there are statements which are sourced in this article but stated without sources in the other, and vice versa).  In short, as long as there is a subarticle at Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal, we need to follow WP:SS and put only a summary there.  Your point is well taken that there was a lot of information there in the first place and you're trying to balance it out, but in any case this info should all be in the other article.


 * What I'll do when I get a chance is write up a quick summary of the other article and put it in this section, and then I'll remove all of the duplicated material. I'll try and make sure to merge any info in this article which is not contained in the other, but I'm guessing it's all duplicated right now. --Deville (Talk) 02:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The information belongs exactly where it is under "Mumia Abu-Jamal" and should not be moved. -Steven Argue

Deville, some friendly advice: you really should read WP:NPOV. It is crucial. Your attempts to defend viewpoints that are not backed up with citations, first by editing out views that actually are backed up by citations and then, when that doesn't work, claiming the article is too long, this shows the lowest intellectual integrity. I don't know why you hate Mumia Abu-Jamal so much, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to push your one sided undocumented point of view. It is like you are a fanatic out there that's just sitting hovering over this article, leaping in to edit corrections to undocumented factual errors as soon as anybody makes them. The current material I posted is factually correct and backed up with citations. That material belongs where it is. --Steven Argue (Talk)


 * Argue do you contest Deville's assertion that nobody claimed Cynthia was an informant? If so; could you point to where in the transcripts that is said? flammif e rtalk 22:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Evidence that Cynthia White was a police informant can be found in the following courtroom testimony by Pamela Jenkins here. It is rather lengthy so let me pull it out for you:


 * It contains the following testimony:
 * Q. To your knowledge, did she have any relationship to the police?
 * A. Yes.
 * Q. What was that?
 * A. Prostitution.
 * Q. Was she providing information to the police?
 * A. Sometimes.


 * Other evidence presented this information in more detailed form, again from the court hearing:


 * MS. WOLKENSTEIN: In the affirmation of Pamela Jenkins, paragraph 4 -- this is from Pamela -- I know that Cynthia White worked as a prostitute in the Center City area, specifically at Locust and 13th Street, during 1980 and 1981, and that she was a prostitute, police informant, and turned tricks for the police officers in the district.


 * We certainly did, Pamela certainly made the statement already that Cynthia White, also known as Lucky, was a police informant.


 * In addition Pamela Jenkins, also working for the police as a prostitute and police informant, testifies how the police tried to get her to lie about Mumia’s case:


 * Q. And what did they say in connection with Mumia?
 * A. They just told me -- well, in other words, they were saying that it was a shootin' and that Mumia had did it. And they was making slurs across me, trying to make, you know, trying to pressure me into saying I was somewhere that I wasn't.
 * Q. Did they want to pressure you to say that you saw Mumia shoot the officer?
 * A. Yes, they did.
 * Q. Did you think they were trying to get you to lie?
 * A. Yes, I do.
 * Q. And what was there about that evident interrogation that gave you that impression?
 * A. Because they kept asking me, you know, was I there. They kept being persistent, pushing it. And Ryan know I wasn't there, and they knew I wasn't there. So that's what I assume, it was pressure, if they are going to keep asking me the same question over and over again and I am telling them no I wasn't there.
 * Q. And you were there for three hours?
 * A. About three hours.


 * As you can see, all of this backs up the source that I originally provided. --Steven Argue (Talk)

There ALREADY is a sub-page!
Please! This has already been said before; but a subpage Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal has already been created, and the discussion of the trial moved there! Edits and discussion should be over there!

See Summary style.

If you don't like what the summary says, then work on the trial page, and then update the summary! Don't just add stuff to the summary! Steven argue, please; respect the work that has already been done, don't make a POV fork! flammif e rtalk 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I mean, the history of this article is getting ridiculous!


 * 1) People argue back and forth, modifying the Mumia Abu-Jamal article
 * 2) The part on the trial gets really big; and is moved to it's own page; with only a summary left
 * 3) New editors see the summary, and add more of their POV to it
 * 4) The summary gets expanded again

....

This could go on forever. I'm talking to you, Steven Argue and Chainclaw. Please respect the way Wikipedia works. If you think the section doesn't deserve it's own article; then discuss that. Don't just charge without discussing and recreate the whole section anew out of the summary.

Transcript link
Is there some reason why we have gone from a link to the complete trial transcript to a link for just the first day? Perhaps that belongs on the trial sub-page, but no matter where it is, the entire transcript is better than just a selected portion of it. Picking and choosing what part of the transcript to show is a POV issue. All of it or none of it, not just the part that supports one POV.

Arturner 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

His surname
Given that "Abu Jamal" means "father of Jamal" in Arabic (c.f. Abu Mazen), does Mumia actually have a son named Jamal? If not, is there some other known rationale for his surname? --Saforrest 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he spoke Arabic when he was an inner-city black taxi driver. I believe he is a Black Muslim (Nation of Islam), who in general know very little about actual Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.48.107 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, he has a son named Mazi Jamal. Strange that that's not mentioned in the article. delldot | talk 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

he has another son named Jamal Hart who is also serving time in prison under questionable circumstances.


 * "questionable circumstances" - whatever. The fruitcakes sure do love this page.

Music
I think someone should put some information about Immortal Technique mentioning and cooperating with Mumia Abu-Jamal in his music. 83.249.193.109 22:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Name? Religion?
Nowhere in the article is there any mention of why he changed his name. His name looks Arabic, so perhaps he changed his name because he converted to Islam. When did that happen--in prison? Before the murder? These are a couple of details that would be appropriate to include somewhere in the article. Could someone who knows add this information, please? Godfrey Daniel 16:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Is He Or Isn't He Alive???
This article has all sorts of problems. It attests that Jamal was sentenced to death in 1982, and his publications while on death row are mentioned, yet it never unequivocally states whether or not he was executed, how he was executed, when he was executed. After the death penalty statement, the article goes on saying Jamal "has" done this, "has" done that. The first few words of the article, in fact, assert we was born in 1954, but never make mention of his death, if it did indeed occur. Two people who read this article could come up with two equally justified (based on the article, that is) conclusions: Abu Jamal was executed based on the proceedings of a legal system pitted against him, or that he managed to escape the death penalty. This urgently needs to be fixed. At the very least, someone who knows can reply with the relevant facts, and I can put it into the article. Matthew 13:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Abu Jamal is still alive, on death row, pending an appeal from the state against a decision to overturn his death sentence and commute it to indefinate incarceration without parole. The state governer has said he will sign a 90 day warrant authorising Jamal's execution within that 90 day window, if the supreme court reverses the appeal courts decision to commute from death to life incarceration.