Talk:Michael Dellums

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

"and (Ron) Dellums did not raise Michael." -- we don't really know if this is true. Ron Dellums has said it loud and clear whenever anyone mentions Michael, but it may or may not be true. If we just say "Ron Dellums says he did not raise Michael" then we're in the clear. Also, since the article is about Michael Dellums, we refer to Ron Dellums as "Dellums". We can use first and last names for both, or just first, but using Dellums is confusing.

Justforasecond 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless you have any evidence that this is not true, there is no reason to disbelieve it. BCorr|Брайен 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 detail about murder 2 good dellums info 3 PROD tag 4 criminal career 5 Father's memoirs reference 6 honest edit summaries 7 Why does this stub even exist?

[edit] detail about murder

Adding details of Dellums' crime--the $20 bag of marijuana--seems to be legitimate (cited, not POV, notable).

Any objections?

Justforasecond 17:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object. This is not notable for a stub of this length. BCorr|Брайен 16:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

stubs are meant to be expanded, no? Justforasecond 16:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What si the citation? I don't see any in the history. -Will Beback 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It had a citation previously, I think BCorr ripped it out when he forked this off of the Ron Dellums article. Here's a quick result from google Dellums’ son, Michael, has spent the last 25 years in state prison for killing a man in 1979 over a $20 bag of weed....Dellums, who has publicly lamented the plight of young black men who end up in prison, has seemingly forgotten his own imprisoned son: In his memoir, Dellums acknowledged all his kids except for Michael.[1] Justforasecond 04:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] good dellums info

Some good Mike Dellums info located. In the SF Chron[2] Michael Dellums' problems date to 1973, when he launched his criminal career with an armed robbery when he was 16. Within five years, he racked up a laundry list of convictions that culminated with a homicide stemming from what he described as a drug deal gone bad. Michael Dellums has been in prison since 1979 and has been denied parole six times -- most recently in June -- because of his behavior as an inmate.

There are signs that Dellums initially did all he could to help his son. After Michael Dellums' arrest for the armed robbery -- which netted $80 -- Dellums rushed from his congressional office in Washington, D.C., to attend to his son, who was being held at Alameda County juvenile hall. .....etc

The article also points out that Ron Dellums could not have done much rearing as he was in D.C. most of the time. Justforasecond 04:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

At the East Bay Express[3]

Ron Dellums always walked on water in the eyes of his constituents, who liked to call him the "conscience of the Congress." The legislator certainly could wax eloquent about the need for society to confront the epidemic of drugs and violence in the black community and the intertwined social justice issues. But when it came to his own pot-smokin', gat-totin' son, Dellums has chosen to forget rather than confront. Justforasecond 04:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope you're not the ediotr who has been adding J. DOUGLAS ALLEN-TAYLOR material all over Wikipedia. Why is this minor crook notable enough for an article? The citations all seem to indicate that he is not significant. -Will Beback 05:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This was originally in his father's (retired Congressman) article, do you think it should be merged back in there? Justforasecond 14:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it significant to Dellums? They apparently have never had anything to do with each other. -Will Beback 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ron is the father, Michael the son. They apparently haven't hung out much lately. One is in prison. Justforasecond 19:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any proof that they ever "hung out" together? Apparently the elder Dellums says that they haven't. -Will Beback 20:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we have proof that Michael and his father spent time together? Well, most dads, even dads who are divorced, hang out with their sons once in a while. I guess the alternative you are suggesting is possible -- that Ron was one of those deadbeat dads that don't give their kids any attention and Michael was one of those in-need-of-a-father-figure children that ended up in a life of crime. But we don't have any proof of that either. Ron defended his son after armed robbery charges but has since distanced himself. When interviewed he gets riled up and refuses to talk about Michael, and in his memoirs, mentioned all his children, including stepchildren, but left out Michael. We'll have to just stick to what we know I suppose. Justforasecond 20:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by all means let's stick to verifiable facts. However I still don't see any assertion of notability for this subject. -Will Beback 21:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Haha. well we'll have to agree to disagree. A congressman's son killing someone is notable in my book. There's nearly an entire article devoted to who Dick Cheney's daughter is sleeping with.... Justforasecond 22:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And the article about Jenna Bush contains nothing but informations about who she is dating and her underaged drinking[4] and the one about Barbara Pierce Bush [5] isn't any better. While I have to admit that I hate Bush passionately, I still start to wonder if (1) there are some major biased double standards involved, or (2) Bush and his family simply belong to the wrong party and/or have the wrong skin color [6], or (3) if those who object to this article are going to clean up the articles about Bush's daughters, the informations about Bush's own alcohol and drug abuse and the controversies about the life of the former First Lady as well. CoYep 13:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bush girls are celebrities in their own right - they get covered in the gossip papers, they are "famous for being famous". Dellums isn't Bush, and AFAIK, his son isn't a celebrity. Is there any evidence of his notability? Guettarda 13:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Must be notable if editors from Trinidad are stumbling across it. Justforasecond 15:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make personal comments about other editors. We're here to discuss the article. It sounds like there is no opposition to nominating this for AfD. -Will Beback 19:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Will. I don't know if the article should stand on its own, but I'd be fine with a merge. You'll should probably ask Bcorr his opinion -- he created the article and I think he invited you here to work on the it, not delete it. -Justforasecond 20:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PROD tag

My PROD was contested by JFAS, and I likely will take the article to AfD. Even as one may remove a PROD tag for any reason and needn't to justify his/her removal (although unjustified removal may be seen by some users as indecorous), I wonder whether JFAS proffered a reasonable justification (notwithstanding the impropriety of the justification he essayed, I am not permitted, of course, to rePROD); he reasoned that "this is not a talk page". While it is true that my PROD contained a longer explanation than most, such explanation was provided in order that the tag wouldn't be removed capriciously; we have never expressed a policy against one's offering a longer PROD explanation (except, perhaps, to say that where a long explanation is necessary, it is likely an article belongs at AfD), and I don't think the length of the PROD explanation is at all relevant to the underlying proposed deletion. Oh well... Joe 20:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a "PROD" is. Justforasecond 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:PROD. Joe 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Duh, my bad. I think the tag is OK, there's really only one or two other parties here (BCorr most importantly). I'd prefer a merge to a deletion. Justforasecond 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of the article since the information here (plus a bit more) was in the Ron Dellums article and IMHO is not a significant part of the life of the man. Having this article has been a good way to obviate one of the most contentious disputes in the Ron Dellums article, and this Michael is not so non-notable that this article should be deleted. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 22:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] criminal career

Michael Dellums' problems date to 1973, when he launched his criminal career with an armed robbery when he was 16. Within five years, he racked up a laundry list of convictions that culminated with a homicide stemming from what he described as a drug deal gone bad. Michael Dellums has been in prison since 1979 and has been denied parole six times -- most recently in June -- because of his behavior as an inmate. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/04/JOHNSON.TMP

[edit] Father's memoirs reference

It's irrelevant for this article that Ron Dellums did not mention Michael in acknowldgements -- these are not acknowledgments of paternity but of family members and others who have had a major impact on the author. BCorr|Брайен 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

dont be silly, of course they are relevant. Justforasecond 15:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil. I am attempting to engage you in honest discussion and work together with you, and you belittle me and make fun of me. I will continue to assume good faith, but you are making it challenging to work constructively with you. BCorr|Брайен 21:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] honest edit summaries

"don't be silly" is not a personal attack -- sorry if you misunderstood. it means that iss pretty obvious that dellums father cutting him out of the memoirs is relevant for this article.

Justforasecond 21:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why does this stub even exist?

I put an AfD tag on it and then removed it -- but only because I hadn't discussed it here first. Would someone please enlighten me? How is Michael Dellums notable, other than being a son of Ronald Dellums? Is every relation of an important person entitled to an article, even though they've done nothing of importance, nothing particularly of note? This guy was a dime-a-dozen hoodlum. I certainly wouldn't think so. I checked for MLK's mom. No article. The article is listed as a "crime stub," but I see no value to it at all. Whatever information of interest on Michael can be included in brief in the article on his father -- that he is Dellums' son, born while his parents were undergoing a divorce, and that he's serving time on a drug-related murder. Who needs to know anything more? What a waste of space! deeceevoice 11:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We talked about this earlier, DCV. Read above (who is Cheney's daughter sleeping with? Is Bush's daughter a drunk?, etc all exist here). I wouldn't be all that upset if the article is removed, but then of course the info has nowhere else to live other than Dellums page. If you want to get the info on that page and will go to the mat as POV warriors try to strip it out, I'm with ya. But, I do think the details about the $20 bag of marijuana and Ron purposefully omitting Mike from his memoirs should be included too. Justforasecond 23:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)