Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumia Abu-Jamal

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:01, 4 February 2008.

---

Mumia Abu-Jamal

previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

• Support Self-nominated It meets the criteria:

1. It is "strangely engaging",[1] comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable¹.
2. It follows the style guidelines.
3. It has suitable images.
4. It is focused on the topic. DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

¹At least, as stable as any biography of a living person can be.

A suggestion: go to http://www.danielfaulkner.com/. There's an email address in the left column -- support (at) danielfaulkner.com. Email them, and ask if they have photos of Mr. Faulkner that they'd be willing to license under a creative commons license, that we could use in our Daniel Faulkner and Mumia Abu-Jamal articles. Raul654 (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

....has this suggestion been acted upon? Raul654 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

A message has been sent drawing their attention to Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission.

Ahhh. As the only person with access to that queue, I suppose that I'll be the first person to know if they respond ;) Raul654 (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support. Just FYI, I'd never heard of Abu-Jamal before I read this article. I read it without referring to the trial article, so you're getting my take on the article without any other knowledge of the case.
  • I'm not familiar with style requirements on this, but when you say in the lead that the case is pending, do we need an "as of January 2008" in there? I also think you might need to state that it's pending (and an "as of" comment) in the "Federal higher appeal" section in the body.
  • set up (in the lead) seems a bit colloquial. How about "framed"?
  • "and/or" is deprecated. How about rephrasing that as "Supporters and human rights campaigners variously assert that he is innocent or was framed; some claim that he did not receive a fair trial, while others support him because they oppose the death penalty." I think the "variously" does a lot of the work of "and/or", and I hope that structuring this as less of a simple comma-separated list reduces the reader's tendency to assume they are mutually exclusive options.
  • the birth of his son Jamal from his first wife: "from" is an odd word to use for this. I'd suggest dropping "from his first wife" and then below make it "Jamal's mother was Abu-Jamal's first wife, Biba, whom he married when he was 19 years old; the marriage proved to be short-lived."
  • I'd change "a.k.a." to something like "usually known as".
  • Abu-Jamal describes in his writings his adolescent experience: could we cite this to whichever of his writings it is from? And I'd suggest putting "suffering a beating from white racists and police" in a form quotable directly to him; it's not exactly unlikely that was who beat him up, but I think we're only asserting that he said this, not that it unquestionably happened, hence we only need to cite him but we have to make it clear that it's a quote.
  • as its chapter: how about "as that chapter's" or "as the chapter's" instead? This construction is a bit slower to parse. And then maybe a comma before "exercising"?
  • a number of semesters: I don't think you can say this; the source doesn't even make it clear he finished one semester. I'd just say "briefly" (which is certainly implied by the source) or maybe "temporarily".
  • Debbie Kordansky and other potential defense witnesses refused to appear in court: this is the first and only mention of Debbie Kordansky in the article.
  • On 1 October 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for writ of certiorari, and his petition for rehearing twice up to 10 June 1991. This is a bit hard to read. How about this, assuming I've understood it correctly: "On 1 October 1990, the Supreme Court of the United States denied his petition for writ of certiorari; by 10 June 1991 the court had also twice denied his petition for rehearing."
  • Singletary's account contained discrepancies which render it "not credible". I think you need to tell the reader who it is who thinks it is not credible; the footnote lets the reader verify the statement, but the statement isn't sufficiently informative. Did the state decide it wasn't credible? The judge? Impartial observers? Journalists? The reader is going to want to know.
  • I think "certiorari" should be italicized; I'd make this change myself but I am not positive on this sort of MOS issue. Here is where I think the relevent MOS comment is. I don't know if legal terms are subject to this sort of formatting.
  • Is there any particular reason to say "Richard Santorum" instead of "Rick Santorum"? "Rick" is the universally used form of his name; I don't think it would be unencyclopaedic to use it.
  • On the 25th anniversary of the murder: how about giving the exact date instead of making the reader check back for it? E.g. "On 9 December 2006, the 25th anniversary of the murder".

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed all of the above in line with your suggestions. Thanks, DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed to support above. I've struck everything except the comment about the sentence describing the SCOTUS denials of petition; it stills seems clumsy to me. However, that's not enough to oppose on. Mike Christie (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Objection due to 1a - I believe the article needs some proof reading
  

- "worked with BPP comrades in those cities"is it correct to call them comrades instead of, say, members?
- "shot and wounded by Faulkner" - ambiguous - "first shot then wounded" or "wounded by a shot"
I enjoyed reading the article, very interesting.
--Kiyarrllston 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comrades is clearly correct from the prose. "Shot and wounded" is not an ambiguous expression in English. Of course it doesn't mean that he shot him but failed at wounding him, and therefore got out an axe or something and wounded him with that. --JayHenry (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

haha - it need not have been an axe. - SAK wound have done the job.

I stand by comrades being inadequate - calling people comrades is already to step into a tone unfitting for an encyclopedia. Perhaps especially so given the propaganda usage of that term in the past.

I was unable to find a shot and wounded article in both wikipedia and wiktionary. I am familiar with that expression myself. I don't know if wikipedia should not use more precise language instead of these, but I think it should.

--Kiyarrllston 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Comrades" changed to "colleagues"; "shot and wounded" changed to "wounded by a shot". DrKiernan (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look.--Kiyarrllston 15:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

-"a prisoner at State Correctional Institution - Greene near Waynesburg, Pennsylvania." - "a prisoner at the State Correctional Institution at Greene" would be grammatically correct and would clarify the meaning of that hyphen.
-"Supporters and human rights campaigners variously assert that he is innocent, that he was framed, that he did not receive a fair trial, or oppose the death penalty. Opponents assert that he is guilty, that he received the benefit of due process and was legitimately convicted of murder. Proponents of execution among his opponents assert that under Pennsylvania law his eventual judicial execution is warranted and mandated by the nature of his crime" - why list supporters and then opponents? I believe a link to the death penalty controversy, separating each topic, - "Supporters and Opponents differ on whether he is guilty, on whether he had a fair trial, and on whether the death penalty was proper" I believe is better. Better than my suggestion surely exists.
-"Marilyn (known as "Peachie"),[10] was born in early 1978.[12] Abu-Jamal separated from Peachie[Marylin]" -be consistent
--Kiyarrllston 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've redrafted.[2] DrKiernan (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done. I'll take another look.--Kiyarrllston 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed to Neutral.--Kiyarrllston 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I believe the article is well-written, clear, and such. I do have a number of thoughts. If they are helpful, feel free to use them to improve the article, but I don't consider them sticking points, and if they would not be improvements in your estimation, simply ignore.
  • In Education and journalism career it says he returned to high school, but it's not clear if it's the high school mentioned in the preceding paragraph or even the same city.
  • In Arrest for murder and trial: was he charged with first degree murder at the hospital? When he was charged helps establish how long the case was investigated and what medical condition he was in at the time.
  • In Prosecution and Defense case we have the disclaimer that each section does not include the counterarguments and information after the trial. We have the after-trial info later in the article, but the counterarguments are dangling.
  • Capitalization: "He was a Party member", "his rights had been "deceitfully stolen" from him by the Judge" Should those be lower case? "... said Judge Sato" but "Sato, the judge in the trial..."
  • If certiorai is ital. should pro se be as well?
  • In Life as a prisoner did the schools give any particular reason they wanted Abu-Jamal to give keynote addresses or why he was awarded an honorary degree? Is it because of Live From Death Row? Was Live From Death Row particularly successful commercially? With whom? Did any critics read it?
  • Had I written the article, I probably would have made Popular support and opposition a bigger section. I'm not sure the section conveys the extent to which he's a lightning rod more so than most other death row inmates (because a police officer was involved) and how he divides even the anti-death penalty activist community. On the one hand Rage Against the Machine threw Free Mumia concerts and on the other hand, the ACLU's support of the case has been uncharacteristically tepid.

I'm surprised a subject like Mumia hasn't drawn more attention at FAC. But I think it's excellently done and I'm really deeply impressed with the neutrality of the article. Not an easy accomplishment on this subject matter, and my points are minor in light of this feat. --JayHenry (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've implemented some of your suggestions. I'd prefer to leave the details of his trial and first book in the relevant articles, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Mumia Abu-Jamal and Live from Death Row, rather than expand on them here. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I was afraid to look at this again after the last fiascos, but this article looks nothing like that original one. It's actually readable now...and not just readable, it's compelling prose. This is an excellent article now-great job!. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (I now support the FA nom, but I have a small COI since I'm personally invested in the recent editing.)
  • I'm a little concerned with the "Further developments" section. I had separated the Beverly claim and labeled it "bizarre", but this was reverted on the grounds it was my judgement, not the source's. The only reference for it is the affadavit made by Beverly, which can only be trusted to mean that the statement was made, not that the statement is completely true. The lawyers for Abu-Jamal were divided on whether to use this info at trial because it lacked credibility. Also the statement is jarring in that very little of the other testimony agrees with it. I support including the claim, but I think it needs to be separated. I'm interested to see how others view this.
  • As mentioned above, I think the "Popular support and oppostion" section might be expanded a little. I'm not sure it's immediately clear that this is a highly polarizing issue. The ACLU's tepid support is also interesting, but I had difficulty finding a source to that effect. It might also be interesting to show when exactly this issue became a "cause". I've read something about a big newspaper ad from the 90s. There is a recent movie on the subject In Prison My Whole Life which may be worth including.
  • -- Austin Murphy (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to the article. I see no reason why you shouldn't support, I am! I'd prefer not to separate the Beverly claim because it would be a short paragraph on its own, which would break up the text unnecessarily and would give it undue weight. However, I would be in favour of including any sourced critical assessment of the statement in the interests of balance.

I haven't seen that film, it looks as if it presents a very one-sided view, but I agree it is of interest to include it in the "Popular support and opposition" section as a third paragraph, highlighting the celebrities appearing in it. DrKiernan (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note; not at all thrilled with the External link farm of support and opposition groups. Can it be trimmed to the two or three most significant, per WP:NOT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.