Talk:Assata Shakur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.

	Assata Shakur has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 9, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept November 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed May 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: next time you decide to write an article about Sister Assata or anyone for that matter, get your facts straight. This article made it appear that Ms. Shakur did, in fact, murder that cop. Medical evidence during the trial proved, without a shadow of a doubt, that she did not touch, let alone shoot, that officer's gun, or any gun for that matter. In fact, the doctor at the trial said that the wounds that were sustained by Ms. Shakur could only be received if her hands and arms were up. I would write more but it would be much easier if individuals would simply read, study, and understand this sad event, as well as other events that attempted, and sometimes successfully, damaged the Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, and every other political group (ever heard of Cointelpro, anyone...)in Amerikkka. Please study this country's history instead of accepting what you hear. History is always written by the victors and skew the actual facts. (edit)

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Archives
1

[edit] Comments from (failed) fac

The article is strongly biased in favor of Shakur. Some examples:

• • Most of the "turnpike trial" section is dedicated to her defense that she couldn't have fired the shot. Well, that's irrelevant, she wasn't convicted of firinig the shot, she was convicted of being an accomplice. That fact gets one sentence, the irrelevant details about gunpowder and her wounds get three quarters of the section. And even the important sentence starts "Although the prosecution could not prove that Shakur fired the shots that killed either Trooper Foerster or Zayd Shakur" - clearly biased phrasing.
    • I agree with you that this defense does not remedy the accomplish charge; however, that's just both of our opinions, it's not a neutral fact. Nor does it make the information "irrelevant". These sectinos present the citable information about what evidence was presented at her trial. Whether it seems relevant to you (or me or anyone else) is not the issue. The important thing is that the article describe what transpired at her trial to the extent that it can be cited. As for the last part: this is not a biased phrasing, this is merely a statement of cited information. The fact that someone was charged as an accomplice because it couldnt be proved that they did the nominal crime is notable. Savidan 15:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't remove it, just shorten it so it doesn't get so much relative weight. Severely shorten it. Focusing on irrelevancies is an attorney's tactic, we shouldn't. Giving the same page space to prosecution's and defense's case seems a good first approximation; if you consider that the prosecution carried their case, you may even want to give the prosecution's case more space. --GRuban (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think I've substantially beefed up the information about the trial overall since you've said this, hopefully at least partially remedying this in your eyes. However, I do want to emphasize that the article is meant to cover what happened at her trial, not just what (in whoever's opinion) is "relevant" to the basic factual question of her guilt of a crime. If her trial was interrupted by the building exploding or a gay pride parade, that would be notable too, even though it doesn't contribute to the reader's understanding of the more narrow question. Thus it is certainly not desirable to remove cited and notable information simply because it is (subjectively) deemed irrelevant to her guilt. Savidan 14:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Judge Appleby eventually cut off funds, effectively preventing any further expert defense testimony." Biased language, implying that it was the nasty mean judge, who didn't let the truth come out that it wasn't actually Shakur who fired the shot, when that wasn't the point.
    • The sentence does not say that he was a nasty judge. It says that he cut off funds, which he did. That he cut of funds is a fact; that he was a nasty judge or that he didnt want the truth to come out are two possible opinions which could be associated with this fact (although not the interpretation I subscribe to), but they are not stated in the article. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The rather important claim that a trooper admitted to lying is cited to an editorial column by a prominent Shakur supporter, whose profession is professor of theology; in fact that editorial column is used as a source six times.
    • There's the professor and also an investigative reporter for this particlar claim. I'm sure I can find one or two more sources for this, as I agree its important, so I'll get right on that. I don't think there is any source that contradicts this. Savidan 02:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The escape is glossed over. "No one, including the guards, was injured during the prison break." Biased, clearly implies it was carried out by the forces of goodness, if even the guards didn't get hurt. If something didn't happen, don't write about it. Instead, how about looking how the best known newspaper in the country writes about it? "Killer Says He Helped In Chesimard's Escape" " 2 Ex-Fugitives Convicted of Roles In Fatal Armored-Truck Robbery" And the accomplices weren't just "charged with assisting in her escape;" or "held on charges related to the escape", thurey were tried and convicted, a rather important difference.
    • I can tell this is going to be a recurring problem with you. That no one was injured in a fact; that those who carried out her escape were the "forces of goodness" is just not in the article at all. You seem to be making your comments based on your own emotional reponses to the facts in the article rather than the way that facts are cited or stated. This is one of several citable details mentioned. I will add the conviction info, though. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • No, actually, I am responding to the way the facts are stated. The most neutral way to say that something didn't happen is not to say it. Consider if the article bore the following "facts"? "Despite the overwhelming anger felt by the policemen, who were friends of the murdered victim, Shakur was not beaten, was not starved, was not waterboarded"? "The sentence was not successfully appealed to any court of appeals." "The governor did not pardon Shakur or commute Shakur's sentence." These would all be facts, but no less biased in the way they were stated. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with this general principle except where the information is cited and non-obvious. To take stock of whehter anyone was injured after any sort of armed incident is quite reasonable. There's a reason that the source mentioned it, and it think it is of an entirely different nature than the examples you give. Are you objecting to this fact entirely or just the way its worded? Savidan 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Shakur maintains her innocence to this day" - innocence of what? Again, remember, she was convicted of being an accomplice, which she doesn't deny. She seems to be insisting she didn't pull the trigger, but that's not what she was convicted of.
    • Actually, I suppose you're right that this can be removed. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead, how about this, where she continues to advocate "armed struggle"? Fugitive in Cuba Still Wounds Trenton; Chesimard Unrepentant at Trooper's '73 Killing; Whitman Is Irate" Again NYTimes. It's clear bias to say that she says she's innocent of killing people and leave out the part where she asks other people to kill people. Or is "armed struggle" somehow not include killing?
    • It's not clear what you're proposing to add here. Could you be more explicit? Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • It is important to say somewhere that she claims to be innocent; but it would be preferable to be specific about the way in which she claims it. I also propose that it is important that she advocates armed struggle, since, while that doesn't mean she did or did not kill anyone, it does seem to say she endorses killing in general in certain cases. The specific NYTimes article there seems to refer to some other (Newsday?) article, that would be a preferable source, if you have access to it.
        • The source just says "maintains her innocence". I'm happy to let the article stand on the more specific claims from Shakur, like the line in her autobiography ("...convicted a woman with her hands up"); the important thing about that source is that it substantiates the obvious (that the internet has been a big part of Shakur becoming a notable figure). I'd try not to use Newsday for anything too controversial, as it tends to play fast and loose with the specifics to make a point. Its not clear where this comment that you're referring to comes from, but I'm not categorically opposed to including it. Savidan 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sheriff Joseph DeMarino lied to the press about the exact date of her transfer to Clinton State Correctional Institute " - again, biased language. Is it really that important where she was held at each state of her trial and imprisonment? It seems just an excuse to get the comment that police lie in the article one more time.
    • This has been discussed extensively on the talk page. "lied" is the word used in the article cited and by the sheriff himself. It is important where she was held, as apparently it was headline worthy at the time, as was the sheriff feeling the need to misinform the press about it. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Where is Christine Whitman's widely publicized statement, in which she attacks Shakur?
    • I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to; there aren't any Whitman quotes in the article cited longer than a few words. If its as important as you say it is, I'd have no problem with you adding it. Savidan 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Not really my area of interest, sorry. By "widely publicized" I mean when I googled around on the Web, Whitman's campaign against Shakur kept coming up in different newspapers. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Where is information about the slain police officer?
    • Please be more specific about which information you would like to see about him. This is not his bio (although its likely he'd be deemed notable if an article were started about him). Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Quite right. The proposal is more in the interest of balance, if we can reduce the emotional content that seems to make the reader sympathize with Shakur, we can live without much on the officer.
        • Let's certainly not add any material that doesn't belong just to "balance" something else which is percieved not to belong. If you think there is any "emotional content" which is not covered in your previous comments, please bring it up. Savidan 02:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "All of the jury members were white" - cited to a NYTimes article, but no link provided. All NYTimes archives are on the web now, provide a link.--GRuban (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Not all historical nyt articles are available online, and often not for free. I'll see if i can a free link though. Savidan 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

My main objection is to the perception of bias in the article seen as a whole. The above isn't an exhaustive list of issues, it's just some examples. If you want to argue to keep any specific one of them, that might be all right, if you provide balance. It's the mass of them that gives the impression that the article is trying hard to convince the reader that Shakur is innocent. I can't find an equivalent list of points in the article that argue for her guilt, and presumably there were enough to convinced a jury, a New Jersey governor, and the US congress (I recall somewhere in checking sources that the US congress passed a resolution asking Cuba for her extradition). --GRuban (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't (supposed to be) like 24-hour news; we don't want an article that is half biased against Shakur and half biased in her favor. The purpose of the article has never been to argue for or against the correctness of her conviction. Rather the goal is to gather every fact that can be cited to a source together. Maybe if you began phrasing your objections more in terms of facts that you thought were missing from the article, instead of generally saying that you would like the article to move more in the "anti" direction, I would be more able to attend to your objections (and I'd be glad to do the leg-work to track down a citable source if you could just give me an idea of the facts that you think are missing). The congressional resolution, her conviction, and the governor's opinion (although not the mysterious quote you refer to) are already included in the article. Savidan 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Much better. Don't go resubmitting it to FAC quite yet, there's still a lot of stuff to fix, but the most important thing, that the article seemed to give a lot more weight to the defense, seems no longer true. I'll list some issues now, there may be others.

• Godmother bit in lead isn't mentioned or expanded on anywhere in main article - lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest. I recommend either Early life or Legacy with the other rap stuff.
• It also seems out of place, in the order where it is in the lead, unless she became TS's godmother after 2005.
  • I have changed it to aunt. It is placed after the bounty in the lead not for chronological purposes, but notability reasons. As long as there is no clear causal chain between events (i.e. shootout -> trial -> prison) then they should be arranged by importance. Savidan 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do you get that? WP:LEAD says "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..."; emphasis, not order. And even if it were true, what makes you think being someone's aunt is more important than "life portrayed in film and song, letters to the pope and a Congressional resolution"? --GRuban (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • There are clearly two conflicting considerations here which the current lead is an attempt to balance. What order would you propose? Savidan 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• "It is at this point, with the questioning of Zayd Shakur, that the accounts of the confrontation begin to differ (see the witnesses section below).[22] Zayd Shakur and Trooper Foerster were killed in the ensuing shootout, and Assata Shakur and Trooper Harper were injured." - The reference to the witnesses section seems unnecessary, since the accounts seem to be given right in this section, afew sentences later. Also, the ordering seems off. Up until now we were going chronologically, then we suddenly jump to the resolution, then we come back to the witness testimony - confusing. I'd suggest sticking to chronologically: At this point, the accounts differ. Account 1... Account 2... Resolution. -- but I can see it another way, but we need some kind of reason.
  • This section mostly gives the accounts of the shootout not given in the witnesses section (i.e. Acoli's trial, statements by police officers who did not testify at her trial, etc.), thus the link to the witnesses section. The resolution is given first in other sources too because it is also "undisputed"; I'll see if I can make this any clearer. Savidan 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Slightly clearer, but still needs work. Specifically:
      • According to the police account, - meaning Harper's account at Acoli's trial? If so, let's say so, right at the front of this paragraph, and remove "At acolis trial" and "At this trial" from the later parts of the para. If not, please clarify whose account and when?
        • The current article wording reflects the wording in the source. The police account means that the reporter interviewed a police spokesperson most likley; the article distinguishes between "police account" and trooper harper's testimony at acoli's trial. Saying whose and when more specifically is not possible from the source. Savidan 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The single paragraph goes back in forth in time. Suspect(s) begin firing. Foerster executed. Then back at shooting starting. Back farther to Foerster arriving, Foerster reaching into vehicle. Then Assata starts shooting again. Then Foerster dies again. Then two pistols are found by his dead body. Have you ever seen Memento (film)? This is like that movie, which is very artistic, but not a clear way to tell a story.
        • I'll reread this, but I feel like this was the least confusing way possible to present a disputed series of events. Savidan 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• and the murder of a New Jersey state trooper - whom? Foerster? If so, say so, we call him that everywhere else.
  • I've reworked this summary sentence; it wasn't just a murder trial, it was a trial over eight different felonies, which is enumerated later in the article. Savidan 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• charged with two bank robberies,... In one of her bank robbery trials ...For her Queens bank robbery trial - where was the first bank robbery?
  • Fixed. This was the Queens bank robbery too. Savidan 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed, but more problems.
      • First, a whole crop of new typos: percieved, absense, had plead, laywer, was also cite ... come on, use a spell checker, that would have gotten three of these.
      • They were indicted for a "series of holdups and shootings by District Attorney Eugene Gold"? I can see it now, "DA goes rogue, joins Panthers"...
      • Why does Williams's contempt result in a hung jury? If it doesn't, don't put them in the same sentence.
      • Shakur's opening statement in her trial for kidnapping a 1975 drug dealer is included in her autobiography - er ... what? Was it an interesting statement? If so, say something about it. If not, why mention it? Presumably a whole lot about her trials is in her books, why mention this specifically?
      • Shakur plead not guilty to indictment - pleaded not guilty to an indictment
      • The trial was delayed until 1976 trial - what?
      • a subsequent judge determined that the manners in which the photos were obtained violated Shakur's rights and ruled the new photos inadmissable. - wait a bit ;the FBI tried to take photos of her during her trial and present them as evidence during the same trial? Evidence of what? Please explain. If that's not what was intended, rephrase and explain.
      • co-counsel opening statement quote has a lot of i's. Capitalize or explain why the lower case is intentional.
        • The above have been fixed. A few things demand responding to: (1) the text of the opening statement is in her bio; this is obviously a cut above just describing the trial. The source found it quite notable, and I think we should as well. (2) the sentence about the FBI photos is accurate. The photos were to compare to the security camera photo which the FBI already had. I'm at a loss over how to clarify this; perhaps you could suggest what would make it clearer for you. (3) The "i"s are just a verbatim quote; I don't want to guess why she wrote in that capitalization or make the quotation inaccurate. Savidan 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Turnpike trial For Shakur's remaining trial, - it's not "remaining" if it started in 1973 and the others weren't dismissed until 1977
  • I've removed the offending wording. It never meant her last trial, only the last to be discussed in the article. I now see why thats more than unecessary. Savidan 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Polls of residents in Middlesex County showed that 83% knew her identity and 70% said she was guilty. - move closer to the "change of venue" line, since presumably this is the reason for the cov.
  • Done. Savidan 17:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• hers resulted in a mistrial in 1974 because of the possibility of miscarriage; Shakur was then hospitalized on February 1 - can you give a date for the mistrial result? Is Feb 1, Feb 1, 1974?
  • Feb 1 is Feb 1, 1974. I think its obvous from the context; do you want me to add 1974 to the sentence again? Sorry, can't offer you an exact date for the mistrial; its one of those things where the article was written after the fact but it doesn't say how much after the fact; I'm guessing it corresponds closely (if not exactly) with the end date of the second trial in the last row of the table. Savidan 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• nine-week trial,[19] on March 25, 1977—back in Middlesex County -- or maybe not. Clarify, were the polls in 1973, or in 1977? Why was the trial moved back, if the jury pool was decided to be tainted in 1973?
  • I haven't found anything that really explain this. We know that the second trial ended in a mistrial because of her pregnancy. We know that when it started back up again she was in Middlesex. I've looked pretty hard for this and haven't found a really good explanation. Savidan 18:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Following the 13-minute opening statement ... Kunstler moved immediately for a mistrial - this is the first time Kunstler is mentioned in the article, explain who he is before or at the same time as using just his last name, not after.
  • Done. Savidan 18:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Judge Appleby, noting the frequent defense interruptions which had characterized the previous days - what previous days, if this was immediately after the opening statement?
  • This was the first day of the trial proper. I clarified that this is referring to the jury selection. Savidan 18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• microphone "They just shot Harper! Be on the lookout for this car!" as Harper entered the headquarters station. - I don't understand this bit. What HQ station? Why was it the climax? Is Foster (as opposed to Foerster) particularly important?
  • The headquarters station is explained fully in the shootout section. I'll add a quick clarification in case anyone skips that section. This was the climax according to the author of the nyt article (who was at the trial). Its in quotations because its a direct quote. Foster is the dispatcher. He's a different person from Foerster if that's what you mean... Savidan 18:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shakur was seated "calmly - why this sentence here? Was she only seated calmly during the radio tapes bit?
  • I've included this sentence because its a rare description of Shakur in the contemporary newspaper articles. Its possibly referring to the entire day, but all they did that day really was listen to the tapes. Savidan 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shakur's defense attorneys had attempted to Shakur's attorney's - what?
  • Fixed. Savidan 18:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• had also successfully asked a 10-judge panel of the Federal Philadelphia Court of Appeals to order - does the Federal Philly court really have this micromanagement power over a state murder trial? Also, rather than Philly, say it was the Xth circuit court (and link to the appropriate article), since it wasn't really the Philly part that was important, it was the fact that NJ was in the Xth circuit, right? Finally, why is this paragraph here in the midst of the proceedings?
  • The answer to your question is yes. The paragraph is placed where it is because thats where it occured chronologically. The appeal took place in the middle of the trial. I'll look into changing/linking the name as you suggest. Savidan 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've referred to it as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, per the title of that article. Savidan 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shakur was charged with two bank robberies, the kidnapping of a Brooklyn heroin dealer, attempted murder of two Queens police officers stemming from a January 23, 1973 failed ambush, and the murder of a New Jersey state trooper. ... the four assault charges - something needs rephrasing, the 4AC aren't on the earlier list.
  • I've reprhased it to "eight felonies related to the shootout". They are enumerated later. Savidan 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• the assault charges (atrocious assault and battery, assault on a police officer acting in the line of duty, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to kill)... The other charges were: - ah, here they are. I'd list the charges at the start of the section on this trial, unless they somehow changed in its middle.
  • They are listed here and in the table. If we listed them at the beginning of the section, we'd still have to list them here, or Judge Appleby's jury instructions would become hard to understand. I'd prefer to avoid repetition, unless you can present a compelling reason to do so. Savidan 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Previously that day - don't jump back and forth in time like that
  • Fixed. Savidan 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• In fact, I'd dissolve the paragraph on jury deliberations entirely (moving some of the facts elsewhere); I don't see the anything interesting in the process, just the result, at most you may want to say "took X days" or something.
  • I'm sorry you don't find this interesting, but that's not a good enough reason to discard notable facts. Jury instructions, and what the jury did right before they gave the verdict may be important clues to how they decided. Of course, we can't say they are in the article without becoming guilty of original research, but the facts are important by themselves none-the-less. Some readers find the result important, others the process. The NYT writer apparently found the process interesting, and they published an article about it instead of saving this information for the article that came out with the conviction. Savidan 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Kunster asked that - Kunstler?
  • Just a typo. Savidan 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Criminal charge table - Recommend move up to the section on the other trials.
  • Done. Savidan 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Jury - this is back on the Turnpike trial section? If so, definitely move the table out from between them.
  • I assume this is resolved by the move. Savidan 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Another sixteenth female juror - there were multiple sixteenth female jurors?
  • Fixed. Savidan 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Get rid of ",though"
  • Fixed. Savidan 18:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• his association with the jurur - [sic] or juror?
  • The typo was mine, not in the original source. Savidan 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shakur's attorneys sought a new trial on the grounds that one jury member, John McGovern, had violated the jury's sequestration order.[52] McGovern later sued Kunstler for defamation[53] after Judge Appleby rejected Kunstler's claim that the juror had violated the order. - so was Kunstler the only one making the claim? If not, why was he the only one sued? Did McGovern win?
  • I guess McGovern could have sued Shakur's other lawyers if he wanted, but he must have decided that Kunstler's alleged defamation was the most egregous. Its basically impossible to figure out who won this suit without calling one of them up and asking. It's the type of lawsuit that gets a small mention in a published source because its connected with some other notable event, but the resolution of the lawsuit (in or out of court) is not notable enough to get coverage. Savidan 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shakur's defense attorneys were - for all the trials or just Turnpike?
  • Some of her attorney's for the Turnpike trial represented her at some of the other trials, but all the attorney's listed here worked on the Turnpike trial, although they never all appeared in court at the same time, and some of them were behind the scenes. Savidan 18:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• who died of unknown causes early on in Shakur's last trial - last is which?
  • Thanks for catching this. It was the Turnpike trial, not the "last" one. Savidan 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Judge Appleby also refused to investigate - is that Appleby's job?
  • Don't know what to tell you here. Her attorney's apparenlty thought it was his job; he apparently didn't. The only neutral and citable fact here is that he refused their request to investigate. Savidan 19:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• her defense counsel's office - one counsel? Which?
  • What the article says is what the source says. Maybe they all shared an office, who knows. Sorry to disappoint you, but I can't improve on the source material. Savidan 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Witnesses section - perhaps best integrated in Turnpike trial section? Also redundancy with the "reports" bit of Turnpike Shootout, that keeps referring to testimony and trial and prosecutor...
  • I would agree with you, except: (1) I can't find a source for when the random driver testified, only this source about his testimony; (2) there's no other good place to point out that Acoli did not testify (important because there are only four surviving eye-witnesses); (3) Assata and Harper's testimony are reported holistically, not strictly chronologically (I've also found sources that note parts of their testimony chronologically and they are included in the trial section, but there are important details that cannot be so placed). I admit its a bit repetitive (although, the prosecutor was not a witness) but I've tried to this this sparingly, and only when it was necessary to give full context to information not form a witness (see above). Savidan 19:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• ...no one at headquarters knew of Foerster's involvement in the shoot-out until his body was discovered beside his patrol car, more than an hour later. - meaning what? Did the defense have a theory that Foerster wasn't actually involved, was killed elsewhere, then planted at the scene? Something else? If someone made something of this, we should say who, and what. If no one made anything of it, we can live without it.
  • The defense did make this an issue at the trial, and therefore it should be included. I can't find anything cited about what "theory" they offered for this; maybe they didn't have one and just wante dot create the overall impression of impropriety. My best guess is that they tried to use it to augment their other claims that Trooper Harper's account was less than truthful, but that's just me. Savidan 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Clinton State Correctional Institute ... Clinton Prison for Women ...Clinton Correctional Facility. - are these all the same, or different? If all the same, pick one name.
  • Fixed. Savidan 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• was transferred to Alderson Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia where she met Puerto Rican nationalist Lolita Lebron[7] and Mary Alice, a Catholic nun, - LL and MA were both imprisoned there?
  • LL was an inmate; I don't think MA was, although I suppose the source is indeterminate on this point. The relevant thing is that she met them. Savidan 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Clinton Correctional Facility for Women - aha, a fourth name, and now a link. Pick one name, link the first occurrence.
  • I assume this was resolved with the above. Savidan 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• According to her atttorney Lennox Hinds - attorney
  • Fixed. Savidan 19:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Shakur "understates - when? In a bio? In an interview at the time? Understates now?
  • The quotation does not limit itself to any of the three possibilities you mentioned. My guess is that Hinds means that she understates it consistently. However, as it is a quotation, I think it best to leave it as is. Savidan 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• were charged with assisting in her escape - tried and convicted, as I linked to before, important difference.
  • OK, I'll add the source you provided. Savidan 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• frustrated by residents' refusal to cooperate - which residents? NY, NJ, NYC, Harlem, Bed-Stuy, Cuba?
  • Webster was not as specific as you would like. Savidan 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• She fled to Cuba in 1984 where she was granted political asylum.[90] The Cuban government pays for her living expenses,[96] to the tune of approximately $13 a day. - "to the tune of" unnecessary slang. I think something like "as of 2008, still lives in..." is good to inject between these 2 sentences.
  • I'll reword "to the tune of" but I think that "as of" is bad practice unless there is serious reason to believe that this is going to change rapdily. Maybe she's really been in Afghanistan for a while, but nothing's been published yet. I think its best not to presume anything unless we have something published to update. Savidan 19:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Chancellor of the City University of New York, Matthew Goldstein, directed City College's president - is CUNY the same thing as CC, or is CC part of CUNY?
  • CUNY is a system of colleges that includes CC. Savidan 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Manhattan Community College - link?
  • Done. Savidan 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• the internet - capital I, proper name
  • Done. Savidan 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• officails - officials. In fact, this is the third spelling error, so spell check the thing, would you? You can just open it in a Firefox edit window, and see what words are red-underlined.
  • Done. Savidan 20:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Another general issue is ordering ; I point out some specific issues above, but in general, I recommend re-reading the whole article, start to finish, and seeing that everything is in the best place where it is.
  • I believe I've rememdied all your specific suggestions; I'll reread the article, but I doubt that I'm going to change much (I have given a great deal of thought to this already) without an external suggestion. Savidan 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• For example, (now ex-)Trooper Anthony Reed sued the force, among other things, over posters of Shakur, altered to include Reed's badge number being hung in Newark barracks, an incident that Reed considered "racist in nature".[125] - comma after number, and need to explain more - was Reed a Shakur supporter? Black?
  • Added the comma. Reed is black, but not (at least not mentioned in the article) a Shakur supporter. Savidan 20:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• to many "U.S. radicals and revolutionaries" Shakur represents a "venerated (if sometimes fetishized) signification of liberatory desire and possibility". - give the name who says that. "radicals and revolutionaries" tend to be people of action, rather than words, and wouldn't be able to talk like that if threatened with torture. :-)
  • Attributed. Savidan 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Probably want to find the other editor who objected at the FAC, and ask her to comment, as well. It wasn't just me. :-) --GRuban (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll invite the other editor to comment too. Thanks again for your very detailed and thorough comments. Whether or not this ultimately becomes a featured article, I think that the article has been greatly improved by your input. Savidan 20:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More comments

I think the article is much improved! I didn't do a thorough nitpicky review, but these are the issues that stood out to me:

• I noticed a few places in the section explaining the NJ Turnpike incident that sentences referred only to "Shakur"; here it probably ought to use first and last names since there were two Shakurs, just for extra clarity.
  • Will do. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• There were several instances of standard units not including the metric conversion.
  • Once I figure out how to use the template, I'll add it in all instances. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The conversion template has been added. Savidan 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any more information on why the funds were cut off? This still seems slightly POV: "Judge Appleby eventually cut off funds, effectively preventing any further expert defense testimony."
  • Unfortunately, I don't have any further information to offer here. Facts themselves cannot violate npov policy; what about the wording is non-neutral to you? I think the current wording is even more diplomatic than the original. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The second clause is POV and speculative. And incorrect.Verklempt (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

POV, speculative, and incorrect...wow. Being as the current article wording derives directly from a reliable source, can you produce another source which contradicts this? Savidan 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The word "preventing" was the issue. Your fix is fine with me.Verklempt (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• This sentence ought to be rewritten so that the clauses make more sense together: " For years after Shakur's escape, the movements, activities, and phone calls of her friends and relatives— including watching her daughter walking to school in upper Manhattan— were monitored by investigators in an attempt to adduce her whereabouts"
  • I see what you mean; I'll rewrite the offset clause. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Has the lawsuit over the CUNY student center naming been resolved yet?
  • I'm unable to find anything on this. As I noted somewhere else on this page, a lot of lawsuits are notable enough when they are filed but their resolution doesn't seem to get media coverage. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd put the jury information after the Defense and Witnesses information. It seems out of place to me in its current ordering. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur with this last point. Thanks for your comments. Savidan 02:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I wonder if the defense was trying to present more expert witness testimony, and what reasoning the judge had for denying more funds (did he just deny funds for expert witnesses or did he cut off funds completely)? If there isn't more info on this, then I guess that's what we are left with, though. Karanacs (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd welcome more info on this if I thought it was published anywhere even remotely credible. My source for this was an investigative reporter. The only contemporary newspaper account that even mentions the expert testimony is the nyt, which is good, but only covers the witnesses themselves, not why they stopped coming. However, intuitively, Kirsta's account does seem likely, as the prosecution proceeded for 8 weeks, and the defense only for 1. Savidan 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times references - why no URLs

Please provide online URLs to allow readers to verify NYT references. Listing original hardcopy page numbers is not useful. Thanks. --CliffC (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these all available on the nyt site for free? I've been having to use proquest to find these articles; I've tried to find about a dozen of them both by using google and searching their site directly with no luck. I also do not believe that this would have the effect of allowing readers to verify the references, as even the links that currently exist only provide access to the first paragraph or so unless you have access. If readers do have access to the nyt site (or any other proprietary database), then the information provided is more than enough to verify the references. I'm not going to remove the links which are already provided, but I don't think its worth my time or anyone elses's to add links to a specific proprietary database which people have to pay to get access to. Otherwise, I would have created proquest links. Savidan 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear earlier, I do not have access to the nyt site. When I click on the first link for example, I see the first paragraph of the article and a nice little ad telling me I can buy the article for 4 dollars! Savidan 04:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

According to The New York Times, their website doesn't give you free access to content between 1922 and 1987, which comprises, needless to say, the entire useful period (i.e. everything before she was in Cuba). Savidan 04:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All NY Times articles from its founding in 1851 are online, indexed and searchable (nytimes.com). Those from 1851 through 1980 are in PDF format; articles from 1981 on are text format. Articles before 1922 are considered "in the Public Domain" and are free, those between 1922 and 1987 are considered "Premium" and the Times does charge non-subscribers for access. However, subscribers to the hardcopy, delivered-to-your-door newspaper get free access to 100 of these each month, very useful in developing articles here. Can I ask you to include the URL of the referenced article when you add Times references in the future? I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedians who subscribe to the hardcopy Times and would appreciate a simple way to find the article referenced and read it in its entirety, rather than taking the citation on faith. As an example of why this would be helpful and would allow others to improve the Assata article, I looked up the first NYT reference without a link, reference number 15, "Woman Shot in Struggle With Her Alleged Victim" online and the full article here has information that helps me to better understand the circumstances of her being shot and perhaps expand a bit on it later today. --CliffC (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As a non-subscriber, I am not in a position to be able to add links that will make things more convenient for subscribers like yourself. However, if I do pay them for this service, I cannot imagine that they make it overly hard for to find an article for which you have the full title (among other things). As a general principle, I am opposed to linking to such non-free content. For example, more Wikipedians probably use Amazon.com than any other online bookstore, but it is against policy to link directly to the amazon page where you can buy the book when citing it. Instead, the ISBN is given, which—like a full citation for a newspaper article—allows people to find the information through their preferred method. Cheers, Savidan 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I correctly assume that you would have no objection to my upgrading existing New York Times citations by including their URL and reformatting them to the standard {{cite news}} template as I run across them? --CliffC (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection, although I don't see much rationale for its use. Maybe you could explain to me the rationale for the template as well? I would also ask that you be prepared to do so for all references if it produces a formatting that is different from the current one. If it looks the same, then ignore that last part. Savidan 02:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the {{cite news}} template with its named parameters makes it easier to construct new references and to interpret existing ones when editing, but since the existing references have already been modified to something of a consistent appearance, I'll follow that style whenever I upgrade a reference with the URL of its online article. Where the reference being upgraded includes a page number or such I'll retain them so that nothing is lost.

For comparison of styles, here is what the article's first two NY Times references looked like last month using the {{cite news}} template.^[1][2]

1. ^ Sullivan, Joseph H. "PANTHER, TROOPER SLAIN IN SHOOT-OUT; Woman Sought in Killing of Officers Here Captured on Jersey Turnpike", The New York Times, 1973-05-03. Retrieved on 2007-10-18. "A state trooper and a former information minister for a New York faction of the Black Panthers were killed and the woman leader of the so-called Black Liberation Army was wounded and captured today in a shoot-out and chase on the New Jersey Turnpike." 
2. ^ Waggoner, Walter H. "Joanne Chesimard Convicted in Killing Of Jersey Trooper", The New York Times, 1977-03-26. Retrieved on 2007-10-18. "NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J., March 25 Joanne D. Chesimard, a leading figure in the so-called Black Liberation Army, was found guilty today of first-degree murder in the death of a New Jersey state trooper and was immediately sentenced to life imprisonment." 

The same references as recently reformatted.^[1][2]

1. ^ Sullivan, Joseph H. May 3, 1973. "Panther, Trooper Slain in Shoot-Out; Woman Sought in Killing of Officers Here Captured on Jersey Turnpike". The New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-10-18.
2. ^ Waggoner, Walter H. 1977 March 26. "Joanne Chesimard Convicted in Killing Of Jersey Trooper". The New York Times. Retrieved on 2007-10-18.

In the recent updates these references and a few others were stripped of quotes that had been taken from the lead paragraph of the referenced article. One edit summary simply said "unnecessary", the other "quote not needed because elink is provided". As you pointed out above, not every reader has free instant access to the Times online archives or to Proquest; such quotes enhance the article by providing a terse summary of the referenced source, and they do so in the actual words of a source well known for thorough and unbiased crime coverage. --CliffC (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they do have access to the lead paragraph, so quoting the first sentence is unecessary. I noticed that in some cases you seemed to choose a sentence completely at random, and one that didn't even related to any of the uses of the reference. Being as the quotes significantly clog the notes, and do not add anything which will help the reader find the original source (there is no database in the world that searches text but not title), they should only be used when they are necessary to support the fact being referenced. I think you will see if you look at a few featured articles which cite news sources that they do not include such quotations. As for providing a summary of the article, maybe they do, maybe they don't. Most news articles aren't written in summary-style. Savidan 00:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You say that in some cases I chose "a sentence completely at random"?!? Not at all. I rechecked each citation added, and for each the quote was taken straight from the top of the lead paragraph. Next, you say "Most news articles aren't written in summary-style." Perhaps, but NY Times articles for the Chesimard era are, starting from her earliest mention in the April 6 1971 hotel guest robbery attempt. All one would need do to verify this is use the Times search facility, free, and look at a few leads, also free. In any event, I will not attempt to include such quotes here in the future, I don't want to "clog the notes" with summaries of unbiased contemporary reporting. --CliffC (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the quote you used for reference #15 in this version of the article; I meant no disrespect, only that I could not ferret out the rationale for that selection. If you think that readers will benefit from reading the first sentence of the article, I would not object to adding a link to the nyt database (my other misgivings about linking to a commercial website mostly notwithstanding). I think that not to far in the future, we will be able to link to the full-text of these articles. Btw, NYT articles tend or order facts by what they percieve to be the order of importance instead of summarizing, which I admit is similar in some cases. Savidan 04:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see now why the quote for reference 15 would be confusing. When I edited on October 18 (diff) with the summary "link to online copy of citation" all it did was provide an online link to a Times item already cited five times. I thought its first paragraph with the "cop killer" phrase was a bit inflammatory, so I quoted a paragraph further down that I thought better summed up the article (which is not really an article but an opinion piece, as evinced by the word "SOAPBOX" in its title, written by a Princeton professor).

That said, a closer look at the version of Assata that existed immediately before my first edits (October 9, here) seems to show some sort of a past mixup, in that the reference (#13 here) does not seem to support any of the five statements citing it, possibly contributing to the confusion. To correct the situation I recommend we simply drop all citations to this reference, no harm done. (The situation may also demonstrate that you and I are the only ones who actually read the material cited!) --CliffC (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take another look at the facts its used to support. Savidan 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It certainly supports the bank robbery photo bit and the description of Harper's testimony. I have removed it from the summation of her trials, as the other sources do a better job of this; I believe that it was added before the others and thats why it remained. In three instances it was used instead of the williams ref. I think this is because originally the entire paragraph only had one footnote. Then the last sentence was augmented with someting from the taylor article. Then someone I think demanded a ref for each sentence, and I grabbed the wrong one from the last sentence. It checks out for the three remaining things it is used for. Savidan 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Married name

In the context of the intro, married name refers only to the new surname, not the new full name. I don't deny that her first name continued to be Joanne, but saying "married name Joanne Chesimard" implies that she took on a two word last name. Listing her full moniker (as she kept all four names while married) is just repetitive. Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Savidan 03:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that ideally repetition should be avoided, but there is a redirect here by the name of Joanne Chesimard, the name by which she was known for years. The examples you give above are not notorious persons whose full name, first and last, was known to millions and printed in full in thousands of articles. Take a look at WP:RDR#PLA, it says

We follow the "principle of least astonishment" — after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?". Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place.

The full redirected name belongs in the opening sentence. I'll leave the method to you. --CliffC (talk) 04:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My reading of that policy does not demand that each redirect to the article appear in the intro in bold verbatim. Both, "Joanne" and "Chesimard" are in the intro and in bold, and would not cause signficant astonishment in any reader, particularly any reader familiar enough with the subject to type in her name. No one who sees both the words they searched for in bold in the first line of the article would be "astonished". "Joanne Byron" also redirects to this article, and she was also known as that "for years", that doesnt mean we need "Joanne Deborah Byron" and "Joanne Byron" in the intro separately. The examples above were merely to show you that "born [full name], married name [surname]" was the appropriate syntax, instead of "born [full name], married name [full name]". Savidan 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)