Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is reasonably well written

2. Factually accurate?: The article is well referenced

3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers all important points of the subject

4. Neutral point of view?: The article uses a neutral point of view addressing both sides of the issue

5. Article stability? Article is stable

6. Images?: Good use of images with proper image use

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.

Suggested improvements: Internet references need to include retrieved on date, publisher, dates, and authors when applicable. Don't forget to cite your sources in the Free Mumia section. Could use some copyediting. Don't just use the words "he" and "him" all the time when referring to the subject. Only use those words when it is obvious in the text your referring to Mumia Abu-Jamal. Italics seem to be used on words without reason.-Medvedenko 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the .44 caliber images?

We know Faulkner was killed with .38 caliber rounds, so why the images of .44 rounds and a .44 Bulldog revolver? --CliffC 13:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Many biographies include proper pronunciation of the subject's name. Perhaps that should be included in this article. I have noticed that when saying his first name, most people I know and most journalists seem to put the accent/emphasis on the second syllable ("mu-MI-a"), kind of as if it were Spanish. Yet when I've heard Abu Jamal's broadcasts, I've noticed that he stresses the first syllable ("MU-mi-a"). --Melty girl 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now the "Abu" part. As it is now, it's uh-BOO7, with a glottal stop at the end. kwami (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've amended that, perhaps someone with better hearing/more interest in his broadcasts can check against the subject's own pronunciation. DrKiernan (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for removal of links to YouTube illegal downloads

(Copied from User_talk:CliffC)
Hi Cliff A few weeks back we communicated about a reference to a documentary "Mumia:A Case for reasonable doubt" in the entry about Mumia Abu Jamal. You considered that one reference citation was sufficient and I agreed. Now I see that two new references have been put up that actually link the reader directly to two seperate YouTube downloads of sections of the film. See refs 39 and 41. These Youtube playouts are entirely illegal as they totally breach copyright. Lawyers have been in contact with YouTube requesting they are taken down. I am writing to you to seek your agreement that these links should be removed immediately.Thanks.User:SeabreamSeabream 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 11 October 2007

Thanks, I have copied your message to the Mumia Abu Jamal talk page and I'll be removing the YouTube links to your copyrighted work in a few minutes. --CliffC 19:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Template mischief - please add this to your watchlists

The new template {{Mumia Abu-Jamal}} has developed into a one-man reopening of contentious issues where regular editors have already reached consensus and balance over the past years. As examples, at the moment categories Political prisoner and Miscarriage of justice are included, as are Marxism and Anarcho-primitivism. The template is overlong and simply amounts to a summary of the article while adding nothing except a lot of POV. IMO this template is unnecessary and disruptive and needs to be removed. --CliffC 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Same stuff under a new name — new Mumia template {{M2}} by a "brand-new" editor; includes Police brutality and the Australian term Racial vilification, among others. Thanks to whoever got rid of the last one, please do the same for this, for the same reasons. --CliffC 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Material in the article is offered as a collection of statements - "so-and-so claimed/stated/swore/testified" - each statement verified by a RS, not as factually true, but as to the fact that such a statement was indeed made. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions as to the truth of a statement based on who is speaking. In a template, links appear as fact; many links included in your template (Cruel and unusual punishment, Actual innocence, Falsified evidence) would not be accepted if added as Categories to these articles. They don't belong in the template either. Besides being a collection of back-door POV, the template is unnecessary. Is it meant as some sort of executive summary? That's what the article ledes are for. --CliffC 03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected the page because over the last two weeks I performed 30 blocks of the same banned editor who is using multiple IPs and multiple accounts to evade the ban. Unfortunately, I see no alternative strategy to enforce the ban, other than preventing edits to the page from new and anonymous users.

If you are an anonymous or new editor, and wish to suggest an edit, please either leave a message here or on my talk page. Thanks. DrKiernan 11:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have to fully protect this page. Any opinions? DrKiernan (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, that would be entirely appropriate! --Melty girl (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Bogus lawyer?

So, User:Bryanlawsf who purported to be Abu-Jamal's lawyer was a York sock puppet too? His stuff looked pretty convincing and I spent time fixing some format errors in it. Man, I hate having my time wasted this way. --CliffC (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Several elements that could have proven Mumia innocent were completely ignored, one example of this is that the bullet that killed the police officer could not have been fired by Mumia's gun.

Free Mumia Section is confusing

The free mumia section needs a rewrite. The entire section is one paragraph consisting of 2 sentences, one of which is compounded with about 8 semicolons. It takes an active effort to understand what it's trying to say. Someone who knows what is trying to say should rewrite it to something that it can be understood. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Please replace the Gov Ed Rendell.jpg image with Image:Ed Rendell.jpg (the commons version). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. The image is the subject of a Commons deletion discussion started by you. Sandstein (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's also wouldn't be valid as a fair use image, as there are plenty of free images of him around. Also, it's up for deletion here too. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then let's wait until the deletion discussions are over. Meanwhile, it would be pointless just to replace one contested version of it with another. Sandstein (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mumia's .38 revolver

The article states "[r]evolver purchased by Abu-Jamal to defend himself as a cab driver in 1979..."

Where are the reliable source(s) which indicates the following: a) The revolver was purchased - not stolen, etc. b) Mumia's purpose to "purchase" the revolver was to "defend himself"?

My personal view is that "Mumia" was correctly tried and convicted, so it really irks me that we are tilting things towards his benefit here. And regardless of my views, it certainly is speculation on our part to assign a motivation of "defend" to Mumia on the revolver possesion. Personally, I think he is a cold-blooded killer and I think it unfair that we let it slide and assign him a 'pure' motivation of "defend" when plenty of people think his motivation for having a gun was to be an armed thug, not a self-defender. Where is the reliable source? Why are we imputing motives - on a speculative basis at that! 72.167.31.56 (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the qualifier as soon as the page is unprotected. It was added by an editor and is not supported by the reference given.--Looper5920 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

minor correction

In the section titled "Life as a prisoner", under "Writings and broadcasts", There is a note by Bob Dole's name (R-KA) intending to identify him as a Republican from Kansas. "KS" is the proper abbreviation for this state, so it should be (R-KS). There is no state abbreviation of "KA".

Changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

HE IS AS INNOCENT AS OJ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.254.188 (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)