Talk:Daniel Faulkner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The word allegedly refers to a suspect in a crime before or after arrest and trial but most definitely prior to conviction. Once a criminal is convicted of a crime, the crime is no longer alleged unless the conviction is overturned. In the case of Daniel Faulkner's article, use of the word alleged or any of its derivatives is a blatant attempt to politicize the article. -- crash77mike 2005/01/16 17:02 GMT

That is true based on laws of libel, but legality aside there is still a question. Now, although before conviction it is compulsory that one use the word "allegedly" it is not necessarily wrong to use the world after conviction. Whether or not the man is convicted, the charges against him are still allegations insomuch as the world "allegation" does not imply either innocence or guilt. Saying that Jamal killed Faulkner, regardless of conviction seems to unintentionally invalidate the alternative theory. Either way you use the word, it will be a politicized article. I would say that he was convicted of killing Faulkner but that conviction is widely disputed. I hope that was coherent. Joe 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the use of "allegation" or any related term, I altered the phrasing concerning Faulkner's murder to reflect that Abu-Jamal was convicted for Faulkner's murder without stating definitively that he committed it. His guilt, however, has been legally established, and without addressing the legitimacy of the proof of this in detail, I nevertheless believe this should preclude avoid further dispute about the way the article's introduction is worded. Since it's such a hotly-contested subject, I think the use of "alleged" in referring to the actually act of the shooting is admissible, at least until someone comes up with something better; I don't think it's too much of a weasel word to say that Abu-Jamal allegedly fired on Faulkner - this is, after all, the allegation in the charges brought against him. The fact that this allegation was legally substantiated doesn't mean it's no longer an allegation. --75.3.52.33 09:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, that Faulkner put a bullet into Mumia is well-established, but the order in which the bullets were fired is not. I rephrased to "Faulker also fired" rather than "Faulker returned fire" or anything of that sort to preclude the obvious claim by supporters of Abu-Jamal's innocence that he couldn't have been "returning fire" if Mumia never fired. It's clear enough that Faulkner fired at some point, that a bullet from his gun struck Abu-Jamal, and that Faulkner was also shot, but I think judgment ought to be reserved if possible on the other details of the shooting to avoid framing this as either a plain cop-killing or racial profiling and police brutality; the whole affair is certainly quite controversial enough as is. --75.3.52.33 10:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

" journalist, political activist, and member of the Black Panthers", If by journalist and political activist you mean 'a person that makes a violent comment on someone elses radio show, ONCE' then sure, mumia was a journalist and a political activist.

[edit] POV Concerns Addressed

As any reasonable POV concerns appear to have been addressed, I am removing the POV template, as per instructions at Wikipedia:POV_check. --ThorstenNY 04:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)