Talk:Stanley Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Stanley Williams was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: December 20, 2005


Older comments have been archived to the December 2005 archive. See also Archives for a list of archives.

Contents

[edit] American?

Why note that he was the "American" co-founder? Was the gang also co-founded by a Frenchman, a Norwegian and a couple of Brits?

the reason he is the american founder is because crips is also in many other nations now.

Oh, yay. Not content with fattening up the rest of the world with junk food, now we're importing the thug lifestyle. Sorry, you guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.218.4 (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But he was one of the "O.G." of the Crips. That is undisputed. The Crips started in the U. S. first. Calwatch 07:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Role as "founder" disputed

His "co-founder" status is disputed by at least one news report... http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.crips.reut/ Not sure if one news report makes it so, not to mention how noting such a dispute might raise the hackles of many.

Raymond Washington was the true founder of the crips according to this article.--csloat 11:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plaigirism/Copyright Infringement?

The text of all the sections from "Johnny Garcia Escapes Death" to "Killing all White People" appears to be a verbatim copy of the coverage of this story by Charles Montaldo on About.com. http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie2.htm. The link at the end of "Killing all White People" goes to that page. However, this is still plaigirism, because 1) it is not indicated that this is a direct quote and 2) the quote is so long that it substantially duplicates Montaldo's work. However, it is not entirely clear whether this is Montaldo's work in the first place. Montaldo prefaces the text on About.com with "Here are the details of that crime from the The Los Angeles County District Attorney's response to Williams petition for executive clemency." Therefore it may be that Montaldo is quoting at length from the LA DA document. In that case, it would be necessary for the Wikipedia article to attribute the quote to that document (rather than linking to Motaldo. Either way, this section of the Wikipedia article is plaigirized and possibly in violation of copyright law. Cutting and pasting extensively from other sources is not acceptable. Wikipedia contributors need to paraphrase the information they find in other sources. An administrator should address this promptly. In the meantime, I have removed all of the text.

I've revised the first two sections of "Crimes" (up through and including 'Botched Robbery' to rewrite to address copyvio. I'll continue to work on the rest, if someone else doesn't get to it first. --B.ellis 05:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the prision life section, as it is verbatim from another About.com page--Cerejota 18:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The content has been replaced. I believe, someone please correct me if I am wrong, that About.com frequently mirrors or copies content from Wikipedia. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Some of the dates in this page appear to be incorrect. For example, there is a bit that says, "In 2015..." That's definitely wrong. And then there's the picture of his mugshot where it says "Williams' mugshot from 2000" or something. He looks way too young to be 2000, and he was in prison then, so there would not be a mugshot taken then.

Tookie was murdered by the state of California in 2006, not in 2007 as the article states. Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.106.56.67 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, murdered is incorrect. His death was entirely within the judicial system; his trial went through the proper channels, he was afforded his full constitutional rights. You may oppose the death penalty, but it's not murder which is extrajudicial. Capital punishment is by definition judicial. What happened to that poor Taiwanese family and Mr. Owens was murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.218.4 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

this is the link to one of Tookie's last interviews before his execution. I am requesting to have it added to the External links. I hope it will provide a useful insight into what Tookie was thinking hours before his death. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/13/1525206

[edit] The murders

There is no mention in the first paragraph of this section of a fourth man, but then, all of a sudden, someone named "Sims" is present. Can anyone clear up this error?

Also, in the recap of the Yang family murders, the father is first referred to as Yen-Yi, and then later as Yen-I.

Whoops, in trying to remove some Possible NPOV issues from the DA's timeline, I nixed the pickup of Sims from the timeline. Will fix.

--B.ellis 15:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) talents

[edit] The Tookie.jpg image

As this is an AP photo, isn't it copyrighted and therefore unuseable by us? Zoe (216.234.130.130 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

According to the uploader, it qualifies as fair use:

This image is featured on the tookie.com website, which is the website of the individual pictured. It is downloadable for press purposes.

// Pathoschild 09:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the press, nor are its downstream mirrors. And in fact, the Tookie.jpg image does not say that, the Blurb200.jpg image says that.216.234.130.130 16:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually under the current legal definition of "freedom of the press" in the USA, Wikipedia is press. See: Freedom_of_the_press --Cerejota 04:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Tookie was a virgin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.38.90.202 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last words

Will Tookie's Last words be posted up on this site?

If he has any, they will probably be added to the article. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

According to NBC, he had no last words or last meal request. yalbik 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

According to AP, he had some milk. Though not an official last meal, technically the last thing he consumed would be considered his last meal. Same goes for last words even though he didn't make a final statement.

In that case, his last words seem to have been "you doing that right?" (or something to that extent) to one of the executioners searching for a vein. Aecis praatpaal 22:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
how does milk qualify as a last meal? If this is stated it should be stated specifically that it was not a traditional last meal but just the last thing he consumed. If you were to drink some milk before you went to bed, that would not be your last meal for the day.

[edit] Specifically supporting Williams

The section on clemency appeal contains the following sentence: However, it is unclear which of them are specifically supporting Williams and which are simply opposed to the death penalty in all cases. Really a rather strange sentence, since if I am opposed to the death penalty and speak out against a specific execution, it seems obvious that I specifically support that person. Thus, I think there is no need to include such a statement. Just in case that someone is generally not against capital punishment but would have spoken out in favour of Stanley Williams (or vice versa), a similar statement would make sense. Gugganij 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think as a question of fact we should differentiate between support for Williams (as in, Williams had been redeemed and did not deserve execution) and protests against executions in general (I dont care if Williams did not redeem himself). As a matter of historical record this article should reflect if people indeed believed in his redemption, or was he just a poster-boy for a protest? --Shanky 15:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you would differentiate though. Some people oppose every execution, but felt that this one in particular was unjust. Could be hard to classify. CanadianGuy 16:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think if it's said "It's unclear which of them", or was changed to something similar such as "It's unclear how many of them", then that provides a sense of the fact that it is indeed hard to classify. -RannXXV 18:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Does this have any bearing on the bio either way? It doesn't matter what reasons people had for it. A certain number of people did not want to see this particular event (his execution) happen, and opposed it. That is relevant to his bio. What percentage of these people would also oppose other executions, and what reasons they might have for that, bears no relation to the bio of the deceased. It might have a place in an article on capital punishment, however. Zuiram 05:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article expresses the POV of those for the murder of this individual. It takes as fact things that the person in question, his legal defense, and his defenders question.

And for a bio page, it has surprisingly little information on the person itself. This points to bias against him, and hence POV. --Cerejota 14:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is betrayed by your language. Can we get a consensus on the need for the POV check? This is no worse than say Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, all bio pages focus on the important events of ones' life. In Tookie's case, the murders he committed and the punishment he faced. Kyaa the Catlord 14:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
What? Both ad hominem and appeal to motive?. I would suggest that you look for the log in your eye before you look for the splinters in other's eyes...--Cerejota 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree the article is NOT POV. The murders and his subsequent conviction is all documented properly, and as sad as it seems, consists of the majority of Tookie's life, along with the founding of the Crips. He was sentenced by a jury of his peers and that sentence was carried out. This isn't the place to debate whether the death penalty is murder or punishment. Joe McCullough 14:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Cerejota's use of the word "murder" is inappropriate. Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. Whatever else Williams' execution was, it was not unlawful under California or US law.
More details of Williams' life might be appropriate. Cerejota should go ahead and add them.
I have no such sources, but since when are requests off limits in talk pages?--Cerejota 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the article expresses any POV at all (and I do not support capital punishment). TheMadBaron 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to, in the meantime, change it to a NPOV check template not a POV one. She didn't make any other changes other than putting the POV flag on. Kyaa the Catlord 14:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


The problem with considering POV in this case, is that, as with all people convicted of crimes, his crimes are considered to be legal facts; so, in newspapers, someone who has been convicted of murder will be referred to as a 'murderer' even if he claims innocence, whereas someone who is merely accused of murder, even if the facts seem clear, will generally not. Should Wikipedia abide by this principle? It's a tricky issue. Williams' guilt has been decided on by a court of law; one way to look at it would be that, if even court decisions had to be regarded as matters of opinion rather than fact, there would be very little that COULD be described as fact. TSP 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I understand that. Unfortunately we cannot go back and rewrite history. This man was tried, twice, then exhausted all his appeals in an effort to save his life. The question is: At this time, is there a skew of POV in either direction that requires a NPOV tag? Can we possibly be more NPOV than we currently are? Kyaa the Catlord 14:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see any support for the claim of POV --SpinyNorman 14:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, those who support the state murder of Tookie Williams feel that the article has no POV, precisely because it expresses their POV. As to Wiki POV, policy does not require that one edit the actual article to change the POV, just that one raises this on the Talk page, as we are doing. I would offer that by raising the POV flag, we will develop a better article.

Murder, BTW, is not only a legal term, the definition that the anonymous contributor presented. Murder is "An act of deliberate killing".murder at wiktionary. The only way I could believe this article is not POV is if it equally damned both houses, but by accepting the murder of Tookie, it engages in a pro-death penalty POV.

You might not like it, but thats the very definition of POV... --Cerejota 15:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I neither edited anonymously, nor suggested that "murder" was a legal term. It is, however, a term which is only used to refer to unlawful killing.
Again, I do not support the death penalty. This article is neutral. You, evidently, are not. TheMadBaron 16:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Execution is not a synonym of murder. Your anti-death penalty POV is blinding you. Due to overwhelming consensus, I'm removing the POV flag. Kyaa the Catlord 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Rather I would, but the article is currently protected. Could a watching admin please remove the POV flag? Kyaa the Catlord 15:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • shrug* I'm not the one who is pushing POV here. I've never claimed either way. Instead, I brought it up for consensus instead of just acting on my personal beliefs. I'm not looking for a fight. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord 15:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And you where the one who brought up Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Neutral? What are we, dumb? --Cerejota 15:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm the one making ad hominem and appeal to motive attacks. Logical fallacies serve you well. Kyaa the Catlord 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, see above, where you actually do both without provocation, at the begining of the thread. Rhetorical irony is a weapon you are obviously very well suited to wield...--Cerejota 17:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I dont think the page should feature either a pro- or anti- death penalty stance. That debate should be in the article about death penalty, not here. Let us use the official terms here - executed instead of murder - not because of opinions but simply because that is the correct usage.--Shanky 15:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I also propose the removal of the POV flag based on that arguement. Joe McCullough 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record I find the death penalty to be quite disturbing and thankfully live in a country where it has been outlawed. That being said, my take on the current article is that it's NPOV. It strikes a balance, his objections to his conviction are noted, the details of the murders are noted, his clemancy request, anti-violence work, etc have all been referenced. Essentially everything he did (or had done to him) that made him a notable individual has been included in the article. CanadianGuy 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But only the prosecution's POV is referenced as tot he the crimes he was charged with. This is my sole standard for POV. The Point of View of the Prosecution is the sole one available, I would remove the details of the crimes until the contrating theories of the Defense are available. A mention of the crimes would suffice until then. If this is not done, the article is obviously POV. --Cerejota 15:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
If you feel that material can be added, be bold and participate. Kyaa the Catlord 15:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Cerejota, you really need to read the conviction section. The details of perhaps there being some judicial misconduct, other suspects, etc ARE in there. CanadianGuy 16:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No offence, but the crimes detailed are what he was convicted of -- convictions which were upheld multiple times. Therefore, we can speak of them, legally, as his crimes. Alot of the Defense claims are laid out in the conviction section, anyway. Feel free to add as you see fit. --B.ellis 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That is becasue he was not just charged with, but convicted of a crime. And since he was convicted, the prosecution view reflects the facts of the case. ONce the article is unlocked, feel free to add the opposing point of view. But as said earlier, this is about the overall article, not just the court case. I still firmly believe the article overall is NPOV. Joe McCullough 15:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd also suggest you reread the "Conviction" portion of the article where the defense arguments ARE laid out. Both sides are represented, but I agree that the defenses arguments could stand being fleshed out more. Unfortunately, I do not have the resources to do it myself, nor, to be honest, the desire to do so. I'm more interested in the aftermath of this event than the players in it. Kyaa the Catlord 15:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Per the above comments, I've removed the POV tag. Clear consensus is that a case has not been made, and the only assertions to the contrary clearly are trying to push an agenda. I am strongly anti-death penalty myself, btw. Postdlf 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only person that feels that a lurid "Crime Library" style blow-by-blow recounting of the crimes he was convicted for is a very POV way of slanting the article? Even Charles Manson and Ted Bundy don't have as much minute detail in their entries. Obviously, co-founding the Crips and murdering people is a Very Bad Thing, but this Penny Dreadful recounting of his crimes and a fifty-word paragraph on his activities in prison definitely seems out of whack. MattShepherd 16:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No you are not. It is in fact my contention that the POV is precisely expressed by such things. Accordingly, I have edited them out.--Cerejota 17:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Take the nobel peace prize mention out of there if you want to take out the description of the crimes he committed. this article is not one sided. 152.132.11.72

Just wanted to point out that Cerejota removed a huge section of the article.[1] I express no opinion on this other than that it appears to be against consensus and should have been discussed further. Postdlf 17:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Cerejota did remove a huge area describing the murders. He did so after the article was already labeled NPOV, therefor they should be put back. Butt 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The article had NPOV removed after no consensus, and others half also raised the issue of the inflamatory and useless nature of the grissly details of the crimes. Perphaps moving the details of the cases to a separate page might be in order? Am raising POV again if those sections go back--Cerejota 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is common practice, but perhaps we could create a new page around the specific trial. A "State of California v. Stanley Tookie Williams" page with the case information there? Kyaa the Catlord 17:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

why? the information should be placed just as clearly as his writings of childrens books if you want this to remain NPOV. the people that want to remove the information of the murders are in fact displaying their POV. Butt

I disagree. MattShepard is right, especially the way it is currently written. The section headings and play by play style is not encyclopedic writing. Deadpan delivery yes, but it should be abstracted, not to make it less shocking, but because the gory details are not particularly important accept to the morbidly curious. Jasongetsdown 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe the information should be there, but I also agree we should stick to the 'Cliff's Notes", rather than the play-by-play. Joe McCullough 17:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In references, you have access to both sides of the story. It is fine to use one of those superscript references to footnote the page and cut down on some of the text. Unfortunately I am too unsophisticated to do that but when the looks at this article die down I will try to footnote these claims. Calwatch 18:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Previously I had extracted parts of the DA material for the murders section. Now it seems that the whole paper has been pasted in there. I don't see the need for THAT much depth in the murders section, it's over done, if you ask me. The edition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Williams&oldid=31203769 is plenty in depth enough, and I wondered if it borderlined on lurid when I created the initial edit of that version. I would argue for a revert (of that section of the article) to that version (with the cleaning up of the Sims info, which I was going to do after the unlock, and the possible removal/moving to a different article of the murder details) Objections? --B.ellis 20:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

A conviction makes the prosecution's claims in a case legally facts, but not scientifically, logically facts. Remember, in the state where I live now a recent pro-capital punishment governor suspended executions because new DNA evidence technology had proven more innocent men on death row than there were men actually executed. Those men...THIRTEEN men...would all have been described, by the bogus presentation style here, as FACTUALLY having committed the murders. But they did not. The evidence you mere third-hand readers of court documents would read would have seemed "solid" in many of those cases. But the only fair way to have presented them would have been "a witness said he did X", or even "a witness testified that he did X, after being threatened with prosecution if he did not" (which is what happened with Williams).

The latter, in fact, is one reason that false conviction rates are VERY high; because police routinely bribe and blackmail potential witnesses with threats to pursue or promises to end prosecution. Of course many people do make such deals without regard for whether the thing they're essentially being paid (via lack of imprisonment) to say are true or not.

So, aside from how perfectly plausible a false conviction is in even the most just, truth-seeking system, one must also bear in mind that our own system supports the creation of false cases with what amounts to direct witness bribery and extortion. If, as is the case here, the only non-circumstantial evidence is the testimony of witnesses who bargained their way out of prosecution, the facts MUST be presented as "a witness claimed", or else they cannot be neutral. Kaz 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

What nonsense. Under that approach, nothing in the entire encyclopedia could be presented as fact but would have to be hedged with "Observer X stated..." or "Document Y says...". Some metaphysical quibble can always be asserted about anything. The place to explain that flaw in the nature of knowledge is in the ontology and epistemology articles, not by encrusting every fact in every article with a qualifier. In any event, it really is a moot point for this article because in ten years, probably sooner, everyone will realize that these testimonial details are insignificant. The notability of this man, and the significance of his life, does not depend on whether it was he or somebody else who pulled the trigger, whether the victim was shot in the front or the back, or even whether he was in the store or whatever it was on the night of the murder. The salient facts to which this article will eventually be pared down are: Williams founded (or was an early leader of, who cares) a big notorious street gang; he was convicted of four murders; in prison he did things that he and others claimed demonstrated redemption; his case sparked a widespread discussion of clemency, the nature of redemption, and the morality of capital punishment. That's it. If editors of articles like this could try to bring the perspective of time even to things that are currently emotional, we could avoid a lot of silly blather on talk pages. -EDM 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The POV prosecutor is adversarial, as is the defense. The appeal documents which sum up both sides of view and are written by the Judges seem more evenhanded to me, even though the decisions went against Williams.

I think that the section on the Governor's decision can be summarized with a footnote referring to the whole document.

That's my two cents. --Beth Wellington 02:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Clemency appeal"

This section needs to be split in two and renamed—the clemency petition was an entirely separate process from the attempts to challenge his conviction. The clemency petition wasn't predicated on his innocence, but on his post-imprisonment activism and reformed character. Nor does a grant of clemency function as a criticism of a verdict for legal insufficiency. Due to a conflict of interest, I shouldn't edit this topic myself, but I hoped to point this problem out so others might correct it. Postdlf 14:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a simple section name change would work better. I'll play with it a bit and see if I can clean it up. Joe McCullough 14:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
My only suggestion right now is "Clemency petition and further legal challenges"...? Postdlf 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
That could work. I'm not sure if a timeline of his appeals would fit well here, but again, I'll see what I can do. Joe McCullough 14:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Changed the section title to Clemency and Court Appeals. Does that fit better? Joe McCullough 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I made it "Clemency petition and final legal challenges"..."appeals" are only one avenue to challenge a conviction, not a blanket term for all challenges. Postdlf 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Joe McCullough 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the link to this clemency appeal <http://www.cm-p.com/pdf/executiveclemency_reply.pdf> appear anywhere in the article? I'd like to see links to this and other clemency appeals clearly displayed and referenced in the article.

Yes, it's the 5th link from the bottom, and the last paragraph in the Clemency section. Joe McCullough 15:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I still don't see the reply petition, dated November 21, 2005, on the site, or more specifically in the Clemency section. I think it would be good to have links to these documents there in the section on Clemency. Brini 15:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You are right, and I stand corrected. All these legal forms start looking the same after a while! Joe McCullough 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be added that a main reason that his clemency was denied was by the governor was also due to his behavior at the trial. "Witnesses at the trial said he boasted about the killings, stating "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him. Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes, according to the transcript that the governor referenced in his denial of clemency." This is from the lastest ap release.

This is the actual statement of decision released by Schwarzenegger—please check all claims as to what Schwarzenegger referenced directly against that. Postdlf 16:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW, while the quote given above is actually from the governor's statement of decision, it can't objectively be called a "main reason" as the anonymous editor above calls it—the statement itself does not attribute such importance to it. Postdlf 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Sources

Footnote #7, which is cited within the article as a basis for an entire paragraph is based off a very biased source. I believe a source such as "tookie.com" has no place within this article. The paragraph in question needs to be removed.

Supported. I was uneasy to see a phrase like "20 years after Williams' trial it was discovered" on the page and alarmed when the supposéd supporting link gave exactly the same anonymous claim. Joffan 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
tookie.com appears to be the official site of Tookie Williams, though, or at least is controlled by the official apparatus of his supporters (Barbara Becnel et al). It has a position in showing what that side has to say. Calwatch 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
and removed Joffan 16:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it proper to footnote a FoxNews.com article which detailed the timeline of his execution under the execution subheading like I just did? -New User

No. However, it is appropriate to summarize the article and place some context, which is what I did. Calwatch 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So what you guys are saying is that a website owned by the subject of the article should never be cited in the article.

There should be no references to any Schwarzenegger-owned websites in his article, no reference to the official movie website in a movie article, et cetera.

Otherwise, the above reasoning for removing links to the official Tookie Williams website is blatantly bogus. Kaz 23:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth Circuit opinion

I've changed [2] the paragraph that claimed that the Ninth Circuit, in a rare move urged then-Governor Gray Davis to consider commuting the death sentence. The judges praised Williams for his "laudable efforts opposing gang violence" and his "good works and accomplishments since incarceration". That is incorrect and misleading; it seems to have been lifted from a characterization on various "pro-Tookie" sites on the Internet. The 9th Circuit didn't "urge" the governor to do anything. The full passage from the opinion is as follows:

...Williams is not entitled to relief from his conviction or sentence in the federal courts. We note, however, that the federal courts are not the only forum for relief, and that Williams may file a petition for clemency with the Governor of California. We are aware of Williams' 2001 Nobel Peace Prize nomination for his laudable efforts opposing gang violence from his prison cell, notably his line of children's books ... and his creation of the Internet Project for Street Peace. ... Although Williams' good works and accomplishments since incarceration may make him a worthy candidate for the exercise of gubernatorial discretion, they are not matters that we in the federal judiciary are at liberty to take into consideration in our review of Williams' habeas corpus petition.

(Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 628 (9th Cir. 2004).) -EDM 17:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the Nobel Foundation, nomination for Nobel Prizes are kept confidential for 50 years. Reports that Mr. Williams had been nominated for the Nobel Prize need to be verified by the nominators. It is possible to determine whether the alleged nominator was an actual nominator during the year in question. See the FAQ at: http://nobelprize.org/nomination_facts.html. That this came up in a court document gives at least some credence to these claims.

[edit] Copyvio.

I've deleted an entire paragraph in the Execution section as it's basically lifted word for word from BBC website. Copying word for word is not fair use or anything remotely close even if you later provide a link to the article. -- KTC 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As soon as the usual current-event-trolling fades, we'll also have to weed out the content from about.com that gets reinserted into the case descriptions over and over again.--Dot tilde dot 18:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm working on rewriting the 'Crimes' Section to not be a direct Copy/Paste of the DA Summary. (I'm assuming a copy/paste of the DA summery is a copyvio too?) --B.ellis 04:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Roll Call of Stars"

Do we need to have the laundry list of stars coming out in support of Williams? Most of the names I see are anti-death penatlty, and are present or speak out at any execution, not just specifically Williams'. How does this apply to the article, and do they all need to be there? I'd like a consensus before I clean that area up. Joe McCullough 17:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be to say "a number of people, including (link)several celebrities(/link), as I'm sure there are comprehensive lists like that somewhere out there. I don't think this is the place for such a list, though, I agree.
I vote to cull it. But leave Jesse Jackson. He's been absent lately. :P Kyaa the Catlord 19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
If there are any notable people who specifically support Williams case, and are opposed to the execution on the principal of it being an execution, than they should be noted (Snoop Dogg caught my eye, is he normally active against the death penalty?), elsewise, I don't see how it is particularly relevent to the article as the notables objections are to the death penalty itself, and should be menchaned in detail on that site. Is it really necesiary to even say 'People who are opposed to the death penalty were opposed to the execution of Stanley Williams'.Bigmacd24
No, Snoop Dogg is not very high-profile as anti-death penalty, but he is very anti-gang. He was formerly a member of the Crips and then left. That is why his appearance as supporting Tookie is important. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing "irrelevant" posts

Is there a standard for completely deleting someone's comments from talk? My understanding is that they should be moved somewhere else, like to the archive, but that it was a sin to remove anything (other than outright spam) from talk. Calwatch 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, should have clarified, if that was my edit you were referring to. I removed a post that essentially said "Glad he's dead". It was irrelevant and unnecessary. If I was out of line, feel free to revert it back. Joe McCullough 18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, that's why I'm asking if there is a standard for where they go. Sure, there's the "not a chat room" disclaimer but I thought the stuff at the top was enough.
Also, I noted that someone has appended snide comments next to my comments in talk in the November archive pages in the fixed width font. While certainly free speech is encouraged it looks like the comments are attributed to me AND it screws up the wrapping of the page. Calwatch 18:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I answered my own questions. The talk comment deletion and snide comments were added by 71.49.21.45. Especially since those comments were not vandalism and provide some basis for how the original batch of editors chose to approach things, (and because of the screwiness of non-proportional fonts to the page), I plan to re-edit the archives to reflect this fact, unless someone wishes to object.
While I agree that such comments are inappropriate even for talk pages, I think we should err on the side of including them unless they are utterly irrelevant to the topic. But edit them of course if authorship is confusing... Postdlf 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PoV Presentation

The segment describing what allegedly went on at the murder scene, stated as pure fact with no moderation, belies the next segment's laundry list of questions about the validity of the evidence and conviction.

Since none of us were psychically present at the scene, and we do know for a fact that Williams shot the camera so that there's no hard proof either way, the "facts" should be presented in a neutral tone, such as "Williams is then purported to have shot so-and-so in the back", or even the barely-neutral "as presented in his trial, Williams then shot so-and-so in the back".

Something that isn't blatant PoV. Kaz 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The segment is clearly referenced as a trial transcript, so no. Butt 19:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The facts have been established at the trial. All information from this should be written as it appears. Williams claims of innocence, while touching, have been turned down by every court he has been in front of. It is POV to claim that there is any real substantive debate of Williams guilt. TDC 19:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
A few years ago, new genetic testing technology proved that there were more innocent men on death row in Illinois than were actually executed in the same period. A conviction does not make something "fact". The facts are that he was convicted, and that people said said he did this and that.
Despite YOUR PoV desire to condemn him, that's all it is.
Note how CNN put the same information:
"A jury convicted Williams of killing Owens by shooting him twice in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun while the victim was face down on the floor."
It's a pretty sad day when CNN, of all places, is more objective in its presentation than Wikipedia. Kaz 21:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The overwhelming evidence points to William’s guilt. The article should reflect this, not some pie in the sky notion that “da man” set him up. TDC 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Talk about POV!!!--Cerejota 01:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, something that doesn't agree with your POV doesn't become POV itself. If that were the case, Flat Earthers, creationists, Hollow Earthers would all have the same say as the rest of us. Some things are facts. Tookie Williams murdered several people and was sentenced to die for the crimes. No POV there. It's the facts. Stop with this postmodern nonsense that it's only a point-of-view that he did those things. And Kaz,there's no "alleged" about the events. Alleged is used before a conviction. GreatGatsby 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a need to have two POV threads going in the talk? We already have one, up the article a bit. --B.ellis 20:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The above thread is more about the PoV anti-execution people versus the anti-Williams people.
This one is about a specific issue, a very clear one for any honest and objective editor, regardless of their standpoint. One does not cite as fact things that one does not actually know.
I'm not here saying that there needs to be more coverage of his good deeds or how nice he was to his girlfriends, or some other claim that we need positive info in the article. I'm simply pointing out the glaring, obvious lack of objectivity in the presentation of the "facts". "Witnesses say" would make it more objective. I'm not even saying it should read "a witness threatened with prosecution if he didn't testify against Williams claimed", though that would be a quite factual description. Just make the article objective, by not stating as fact something the authors of the article absolutely do not know to be fact. Describe the source. Even CNN can do that.Kaz 21:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you even read the section? The very title of it says "CRIMES ACCUSED AND CONVICTED" its not presenting it as fact. It's presenting it as the reason the court convicted him. Butt 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So which parts of the trial transcript were disputed by the defense? Did Williams admit taking part in the robbery at all? Or did he say that all the witnesses were lying? I don't understand Williams' side of the story.. Pfalstad 00:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The witnesses claiming to have seen Tookie shoot them gave that testimony after being threatened with prosecution if they did not. Essentially, when several people commit a crime together, each is told "YOU will be the sole guy prosecuted for the worst part of this crime, unless you testify that this other guy committed the worst parts of the crime". In this case, convicting Crips gang-founder Williams was very attractive to the police and DA, regardless of who actually committed the murder. Therefore, whether or not he did it, his accomplices in the robbery were told THEY were the one guy about to be prosecuted for murder, unless they testified against Williams. So, of course, they did. Whether he did it or not. Kaz 23:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Williams is in fact the only member who was accused in this crime who did not testify about it. He took the stand and said he did not kill the people, but he did not say whether he knew who did, or if he could prove he didn't.
It's worth noting that 9 Ninth Circuit judges in California said that the trial was "racist" and "unconstitutional and reprehensible." - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Garcia Escapes Death?

It says 'Death', which I think is a little much. The guys went in without carrying out the planned robbery. So basically, nothing happened. They bought stuff and they left. (Also, notice it says 'robbery', not 'homicide'.) How do we make the leap from absolutely nothing criminal occurring to the idea that they were not only going to rob, but murder somebody. He must be tired from jumping to conclusions all day.

I agree. The whole section has gotten to 'Cops'-y for me. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a shock-tv show. I think the state the murders section was in yesterday, while maybe a tad too long, were much better. I put a whittled down version of the trial transcripts in there previously, but now the whole transcript is in the section. I don't see the need. See my change proposal in the main 'POV' thread above. --B.ellis 20:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The two men who went in were reportedly only there to rob the place, not kill people. This header seems like speculation. 69.239.143.213 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Williams' children

Is this section irrelevant? The content seems to be a short description of criminal activity and nothing else. What does this achieve? Seems biased. (MarkG)

It shows how his children were criminals like him. Let the reader form their own opinion on it. Butt 20:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you're pushing a strong opinion here - a kind of reflexive argument that if the children carried out a crime then this proves the father is a criminal, a kind of Victorian 'criminality is genetic' argument. I don't this is relevant. Also, it's not clear that all his children are considered here so I'd say a strong bias is being pushed.

But why stop there? Why don't we find some cousins or maternal grandnephews that got a ticket for jaywalking? Or on the flip side - someone in his family who gave $100 to charity.

Seriously - I agree with the original poster that this section is irrelevant or at least needs more context. What is the exact raison d'etre for this section? - if we have one it should be clearly stated. (imho)

The reason is, it shows his child was a criminal like him. If you notice, many articles will have something about people related to the person in question. In the case of a criminal it is interesting and informative to know that his son was also a murderer. Butt 21:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The focus is not that the son committed the crime but rather there's an implication in the case of a son or daughter commiting a crime that the parent may have been the role model for the criminal activity.


On the other hand, the second instance (the different Williams being convicted) seems pretty irrelevant. Somewhere in a news article should be information about his children, and it would be appropriate to discuss all the achievements and detractions of his kids in a designated section about his heirs/survivors. Calwatch 04:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


I'd also suggest not relevant, unless the opinion is that all wikipedia articles should have first generation family stories attached to contextualise the subject of the article (e.g. should the section on President Bush's article referring to law and domestic policy mention that both his children have criminal records?). I think in the current article only provising the criminal record of one of the subject's children is an attempt by the poster of this section to push a strong POV. (MarkG)
I suspect that the G.H.W. Bush article mentions that his sons are a governor and president. I've been truthfully arguing what might be described as a pro-Williams point in other segments of this discussion, but I have to say that it makes sense to at least mention general details about his children, if unusual, like them being convicted of crimes.
Wikipedia is, and this is one of the most important and least remembered of its tenets, supposed to be inclusive and OVERinformative, whenever there's a question of what's enough. One of the most grotesque and obvious signs of PoV in an editor is when he insists NOT on altering sections to make them more neutral, but removing them entirely. Kaz 23:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swilliams.pdf

The document seems to have disappeared from the DA's website. Does anyone have a copy of the document somewhere or know where to get it from?

Found at http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams1.pdf, updated to reflect. --B.ellis 03:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Looky, it moved AGAIN, now its back to http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams.pdf. --B.ellis 20:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life in Jail

Since it has been cleaned up since last night, I have re-worded the final paragraphs on the prison guards suggestions that he still remains an active Crip. It was originally in response to the words, "Since 1983 Tookie has been reformed he has had no major infractures in prison"

[edit] Prison Life

The prison life section should not end with 1994 but with 2005. --Dot tilde dot 01:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] gang membership renouncement

Did Williams renounce his gang membership? The first paragraph of the article says he did and the second paragraph says he did not.

Yes. It says so on his website. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 00:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crimes

I updated the crimes section a bit, shortening/cutting some of the more blow-by-blow crime scene descriptions (which can be read in depth in the court transcripts) and removing material ripped directly from about.com here: [3] The previous Crimes section was a direct copy and paste from the above site, which could be a copyright issue (although most of the text on that page is ripped direct from the DA summery).--B.ellis 02:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits contained some copyvio problems too i think. Olorin28 03:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My edits are all from the DA transcripts, hence no CopyVio. The previous edit is a direct rip from about.com (although much of the material itself is from the DA transcripts too) --B.ellis 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. the about.com text is a direct rip from the DA transcript too, which is why there are such similarities in my edit. --B.ellis 03:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough the DA transcript has been removed from the DA's website. I am trying to locate a copy to upload. Does anyone have a copy of the PDF? --B.ellis 03:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

DA Response was relocated to http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/swilliams1.pdf Updated to reflect (don't think I missed any, but...)--B.ellis 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whose words are these?

The following paragraph was bolded in the article, but it wasn't attributed to anyone, and there were no quote marks around it. Are these Schwarzenegger's words? Does anyone know?

Is Williams’ redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case. Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption. In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do. 207.6.31.119 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's from the statement released by Schwarzenegger denying clemency, but I can't see why it shouldn't have quotation marks, and I really don't see why on earth it's bolded.Murphyr 08:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm removing the bolding. Kyaa the Catlord 08:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

"Supporters of Williams within the chamber were reported to have raised their fists, symbolizing Black Power." Who reported this? Rich Farmbrough 11:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The media witnesses reported this during the press conference. Aecis praatpaal 11:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The question still hangs "which media witnesses?" It needs to be sourced. Kyaa the Catlord 12:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find the footage of the press conference somewhere. When I've found it, I'll mention it here. Aecis praatpaal 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I see one report saying his editor and spokesperson raised her fist. Sourced here: [[4]]

From that article:

Williams held his gaze. Becnel raised her fist. Later, she would cover her mouth, then her eyes. Seated in front of the chamber, Lora Owens sat motionless, her eyes trained on the man convicted of shooting down her stepson, Albert Owens, 26 years ago on a February morning inside the 7-Eleven where he worked. Joe McCullough 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Kevin Fagan, already quoted, said at a press conference, "We could see them, and throughout the last part of the execution -- or preparing him when he was still conscious, they gave what looked like black power salutes several times to him, one man and two women." I'll change my quotation from him to include this.

Beth Wellington

[[5]]

Thanks Beth, you beat me to it! Joe McCullough 15:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Great. Rich Farmbrough 16:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Nice find Beth. :) Kyaa the Catlord 18:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

I've added a link to Dead Man Eating, which documents Tookie's last meal. His article is on the main page now, but I'll change the link when it becomes archived on DME to link to his specific article. Bigj

I noticed the article was immediately reverted by Pathoschild, with no explanation. I'm going to re-add the link unless a reasonable explanation is made.
I reverted your change soon after you added it; I apologize if that seemed abrupt. However, the site you linked to does not seem particularly encyclopedic. I'd much prefer if you discussed this link on the talk page before adding it to the article. (On a related note, I got an edit conflict with the second comment above.) // Pathoschild 09:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I did discuss it after I added it ;-). At the very least, "Williams requested no last meal and provided no last words at the time of his execution to the prison warden" needs to be changed as it's innacurate and DME could be used as a source. And I'm sorry, I don't think I quite know what you mean by "encyclopedic"? Dead man eating is the most comprehensive internet source for information regarding last meals of death row inmates. Bigj 10:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
By 'encyclopedic' I mean a project to gather serious data on all aspects of human knowledge into a credible, comprehensive database. In terms of encyclopedic citation, I personally tend to doubt a personal website coupled with articles on a free weblog, whose header is a hand-drawn gif of a hanging man holding a melted ice-cream cone. Does anyone else want to comment? // Pathoschild 10:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it's almost as bad as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit ;-). But seriously, while you have raised generalized objections to the presentation and cost of the blog, you haven't raised any objections about the content. Before I posted the link, I verified DME's claim of what Mr. William's last meal was independently with credible news sources (here's one:CBS News) and found no discrepancies. I think this lends credibility to the site and at the very least, the article on Mr. Williams (primarily information on his last meal). Additionally, the DME site is currently more accurate than this Wikipedia article, regarding his last meal. I rest my case and my ears and mind are open. Bigj 10:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Almost. ;) My objections aren't so much to the content but to the credibility of the source, which is greatly undermined by the factors I mentioned above. Articles from a known news source are ideal; if you want to add that article to back up the claim, I have no problem with it. // Pathoschild 10:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I added the information on his last meal where it said he had none and corrected the scarey sentence. I also cited that information from a "credible" news source unless you have objections to KTLA. We can now say that this article is as accurate as a "personal website ... whose header is a hand-drawn gif of a hanging man holding a melted ice-cream cone" :). Bigj 11:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trimming

Now that the furore has died down a bit, I'm going to work on trimming the article back to cure the plague of recentism with which it is afflicted. I'm going to do it section by section in hopes of avoiding edit conflicts with vandals, and probably will do in two passes: first to trim, then to NPOV. This will probably take a while. -EDM 18:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been working on the 'Crimes' section doing a similar process (it was initially too long, essentially the whole DA sheet was pasted in there). I didn't necessarily thing the whole pathologist reported needed to be in there, either, plus I am rewriting so its not a direct C/P from the DA summary (copyvio?). --B.ellis 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but the introduction states, "On December 13, 2005, Williams was barbarically murdered by the United States prison system via lethal injection amidst debate over the death penalty and whether his anti-gang advocacy in prison made for genuine atonement." I think this is blatantly biased, and should be changed to "executed" or something not so anti-death penalty or pro-Tookie. --VèrtaReyes 14:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Funeral details?

Someone changed my edit (and the edit of a previous editor with funeral details) with the perplexing statement "WP:NOT a kiosk", yet the word "kiosk" appears nowhere in the link provided. I don't understand why this relevant detail was excluded, so I'm adding it back (sans names of the "participants" who have not spoken yet and so will be omitted for now until they actually speak). Calwatch 06:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from what WP:NOT says, do you think Wikipedia should be a kiosk? I think it should be an encyclopedia. I suppose you could use Wikimedia software to create Wikiosk! Sounds like a good weekend project--Cocopuffberman 03:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it. An encyclopedia is not the place to advertise an upcoming entertainment event. After the funeral takes place, a line or two describing it is appropriate. Before then, this isn't the place for it. I'm removing it again. -EDM 06:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Entertainment event??? That's a somewhat bizarre way to describe a funeral. Seems like you have a bit of a POV there. Isn't the funeral somewhat relevant in a section called "aftermath"? (It should also be noted that the statement was placed in several days ago, and would not be considered "advertising". After all, when public figures die, the funerals are relevant to an encyclopedia article.) Calwatch 06:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Not till it happens. -EDM 06:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, someone reading the article should be interested in what Becnel's role in this is. In addition, Becnel is running the funeral. I am deleting all information about time and date, just that Becnel is running the show, and that Williams did instruct Becnel to take care of those arrangements, as documented by news articles. Calwatch 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I added the funeral and public viewing details back in, plus a link to the source. Joe McCullough | (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The objection, since this seems difficult for many editors to understand, is not that this information is unsourced or unverifiable, but that it is news, not encyclopedic information. An encyclopedia is not the place to put information about an upcoming public event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. After the funeral takes place, it will be fine to say Williams' funeral took place on [date] at [location]. Eulogies were offered by [x, y, and z] and his body was translated to [location] for interment/cremation/whatever. But, as with so much else in this project, I haven't got the energy to keep reverting changes made by individuals who have a different vision of encyclopedicity than I do. -EDM 18:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. Joe McCullough | (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible error in the "12th man executed by the state" phrase

English isn't my native language so perhaps i'm mistaken, but I might have found an inconsistency in the following area.

In the section 'Execution' there's the following phrase: He was the 12th person executed by the state since California reinstated the death penalty in 1977.

In the SFGate article [41] they have this to say: "... the execution of the 12th man put to death by California since capital punishment was revived in 1992 after a quarter-century hiatus."

Sorry. See capital punishment in California. Basically nobody was executed between 77 and 92, even though it was on the books. Morwen - Talk 11:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that was a fast answer.  :) Thanks for clearing that up.

[edit] GA???

In this debate, while my original qualms with the article have been mostly addressed, people continue to support stuff that is really PoV, such as allegedging that the courts are neutral, to support things that reasonable people disagreed as to if they constitute PoV

We should remove opposition to a Good Article nomination when the article actually presents a NPOV, one which takes into account the fact that Stanley Tookie William's guilt is not only not a consensus, but a heavily debated issue, in spite of he already being dead. Precisely because of the heavy differences of opinion in the case, for this particular article to be a Good Article, it must include more stuff from the defense and and alleged innocence of the subject.

I have desisted from reverting to what I feel is a more NPOV in the article, as expressed in other postings, because some valid points have been made, the best of which all boil down to the reasonable assertion that an in depth article which skews a little to the prosecutorial and judicial POV, clearly labelled as such, is better than an emasculated, bland one with little substatial information.

Furthermore, I do accept as reasonable the calls for further "counter-weight" content rather than removal of content as prefferable.

But still, until the article doesn't present with as much depth and equal time that "counter-weight" it would be far from the accepted deifnition of what is a Good Article. --Cerejota 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This article, while no longer as appallingly bad as it was a week ago, remains a mess. It's a long way from being a good article and if put forward as such will only bring scorn on the project. It's emphatically not something I would sign my name to if it were to be published - can anyone here say they would? -EDM 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Cerejota is right that the courts are not NPOV. I know from first-hand experience, having worked in corrections for my entire career. I just preferred citing their documents as a source to the prosecutor's briefs, as at least the courts quote from both sides.

I have found working on this article frustrating. Editors have deleted some items as "too long" which represented defense arguments or those acknowledging the validity of the same, while leeping other sections intact which represented prosecutorial arguments or support for the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Wellington (talk • contribs)

The problem here is with definition of terms. The court is neutral; it weighs the arguments on both sides and reaches a decision; and when writing an article about the decision, the court's conclusions are, by definition, NPOV: they are the primary source. That is so despite the fact that usually the decision will agree with the arguments made by one side. Just because one side wins a court case does not mean that accurately reporting the outcome of the case is POV. Now, if the purpose of the article is to again make here the arguments made by both sides during the litigation, as though it were a replication of the whole trial and appeals process, then yes, it ought to be balanced. But that isn't really the purpose of the article, is it? We are not retrying the case before the court of public opinion, are we? We are writing this article to report on a case that was tried and appealed and decided and that report will necessarily, if it is to be truthful, seem to align with the winning side. But it is not POV for that reason. -EDM 00:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

EDM, You write clearly, befitting your stated knowledge of U.S. law. And yet, I still concur with Cerejota. If we are going to talk about a question of terms, the issue of "retrial" by Wikipedia is a straw man. The article is not "the outcome of the Stanley Williams trial" The article is "Stanley Tookie Williams, III" (however much you may detest him, as I suspect by your remark on my talk page).

In an article on the man and his life, which certainly includes the trial, I vote for summarizing both prosecution and defense as well as the judicial outcome, in order to be NPOV. I would use the same standard in a biography which included a controversial case in which you DISAGREED with the verdict.

As such, this is my last (and still frustrated) comment. I've no more time for discussion which yields so few results; regarding Wikikpedia articles I find problematic, I'll allot my time for editing them to make them worthy of the GA designation, not composing comments on their quality.

GA won't apply to this topic, anyway, until enough time passes that the article is stable.--Beth Wellington 03:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are very right - the article is about the man, not just the trial. Sadly, the trial (including its aftermath, as well as the events that caused there to be a trial in the first place) constituted a major part of the man's life. Not all of his life, true, but a lot of it. One problem with writing as the events are unfolding (in effect, writing an encyclopedic entry for what ought to be a news article) is that it really is too soon to know whether this man will be remembered in 20 years for his crimes, his redemptive activities, or neither. Personally, I suspect it will be the third, and that in 2025 he will be utterly forgotten.
By the way, what comment on your talk page led you to think I detest him? I don't think I've written anything from which to conclude whether I detest or admire the man. -EDM 04:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "I'm going to get you"

Beth Wellington reverted an edit with the summary "reversed vandalism - couldn't trace source." The portion she deleted appears in the 9th Circuit opinion, cited to the trial transcript. I'm not putting it back since it doesn't seem critical, and the passage that her reversion restored in its place is also in the trial transcript; but the edit was neither vandalism nor unsourced. -EDM 21:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death date

Although (given the uproar around his execution) it's probably one of the most concrete facts on here, I thought he was slated to be put to death on the 14th. I know they do those things around midnight, so is this based on when the prison announced he had been killed, or the time that people who witnessed it said he died by glancing at their watches, or, perhaps, an even more reliable and accurate means


It was based on the time the prison warden officially announced time of expiration. Calwatch 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The anonymous 70.111.45.117 is at it again. He or she reverted changes again from my version made by an administrator, calling it vandalism. s/he cites the About.com article which was previously discredited as being directed from the prosecutor’s brief.

What can we do about this? It's getting tiresome.

The Court of Appeals summary of the case [6] Williams stated "that various jurors misconstrued as a threat a question that he asked defense counsel at the close of the guilt phase. The trial record shows that after the jurors returned their guilty verdicts, Williams said, “Sons of bitches,” in a voice sufficiently loud that the court reporter included this statement in the trial transcript." "On the day that the jury began its penalty-phase deliberations, an alternate juror reported to the bailiff that some jurors believed that Williams had threatened them. In response to questioning by the trial judge, the alternate juror stated that the jurors sitting in the center of the jury box had told her that after the verdicts were read, Williams looked at the jury and said that he was going to get all of them."

You are the vandal, not the other way around. I'm simply restoring to the original form that part of the article you keep replacing. The original article had a reference, so there was no need to change it at all. It was from a REUTERS article, and the About.com link simply pointed to more articles about the Williams case. In other words: You lied. We all know how badly you want this article to look favorably upon this mass murderer. I prefer a factual article, not propaganda.70.111.45.117 01:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Catsv keeps deleting the appropriate categories "Criminal" and "Murderer". He is both and the categories should remain.

It is also foolish to leave up the 'disputed convictions' category. There is very little credibility to any disputing of this conviction. The evidence was very strong. Yes, Williams claims he didn't do it. So did that liar that was executed in Virginia and just had his DNA tested. Newsflash, murderers and rapists are capable of telling self-serving lies.

At any rate, there is no reason at all to delete the accurate categories "Criminal" and "Murderer".

I didn't mean to delete those categories, I was trying to revert an edit in which a vandal had replaced the categories "disputed conviction" and one other (american prisoners, maybe?) with repeats of "criminal" and "murderer." I think all of those categories should be included. It certainly is a disputed conviction, particularly for the apparent racism employed by the prosecution, and the heavy reliance on informers of dubious credibility. Catsv 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I repeat what I said above: nine 9th Circuit California judges called the trial "racist" and "unconstitutional and reprehensible." If a whole fistful of judges dispute it, it's disputed. - Che Nuevara: Join the Revolution 00:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
See Category:Disputed convictions (not to be confused with Category:Wrongfully convicted people). It is not overly full. Every list and category in Wikipedia has an implicit "famous" or "notable" in front of it. This case certainly has been disputed famously. If the category exists this case belongs in it. If anyone thinks the category should not exist then there is a procedure to handle that too. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Quote me court documents in which these 9 judges called his trial "racist, incomprehensible and unconstitutional." Seems like pure crap to me, especially given that his guilt was upheld on EVERY appeal. Batman2005 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't even matter if nine court judges called the case "racist", that doesn't mean it's actively disputed. The shrill cry of "racism" is usually used when people just don't agree with someone being convicted with the facts (the famed Wesley Cook being a prime example). GreatGatsby 02:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activist response

I feel that this article could use more information on the activist campaign to save Williams, which I think was rather unprecedented. I don't think I have the time to work on this soon, but I recommend someone try it. For example, near the bottom of this page is a lengthy and pretty diverse list of events aimed at stopping the execution, from all over the United States. Ideally I think this section could also say something about whether this rare level of mobilization has implications for the death penalty in the future. California's legislature just passed a moratorium on executions; is that considered partially a response to this case and the campaign surrounding it, or was it previously expected? (I'm asking genuinely; I don't know, and I'm not from California.)Catsv 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)catsv

The legislators introducing the moratorium say it specifically had nothing to do with Williams, but with cases in other parts of the country that were questionable. Calwatch 07:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The activism deserves a short mention. FYI, the moratorium in CA did not pass, although one in NJ did. See " Death penalty moratorium bill stalls in Assembly" in the San Francisco Chronicle. Proponents will reintroduce the measure next session. [7]--Beth Wellington 01:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Nobel Prize nominations"

I find that section highly non-neutral. Actually, I find many pieces of this entire article to be quite subjective in the way it's presented. This section however needs to be rewritten, especially remove the parts where it says "Past infamous nominees include Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Slobodan Milosevic, Benito Mussolini and Fidel Castro." -- that only dictators were chosen is quite a testament that whoever added that had a clear agenda. Mastgrr 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and think that the fact that a) nominators can name any living individual and b) that the individual has to be alive to receive the Prize are sufficient enough to note the lack of value of a Nobel Prize nomination. Calwatch 07:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Right, and I've done a little more revision. Nominations are essentially meaningless, but this was an extraordinary case because they were so well-publicized. As time goes by it may be appropriate to put this and future awards, memorials, etc, into a "legacy" section. Cheers, -Will Beback 08:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I added this in again. It is fact and is entirely relevant. I'm sick of people using the 'He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, he must be innocent' argument. Adding the names of these sociopaths proves that a Nobel Peace Prize nomination means nothing.TurnerDrankHooch 04:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The names of other nominees are not relevant to Williams. If you are sick of what people say then correct them. This article is about Williams, not the Peace Prize. -Will Beback 04:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I think people often overlook the fact that Stanley Williams is a bad person to denounce the death penalty. People who come to this talk page to lable Tookie as good have misunderstood their own argument: the position that the death penalty should never be used in any case; including the cases of the evil dictators listed above.--Cocopuffberman 03:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree that his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize means VERY little. Any of the following people may nominate someone for the peace prize: members of national assemblies and governments; members of international courts of law; university chancellors; university professors of social science, history, philosophy, law and theology; leaders of peace research institutes and institutes of foreign affairs; former Nobel Peace Prize laureates; board members of organisations that have received the Nobel Peace Prize; present and past members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (committee members must present their nomination at the latest at the first committee meeting after February 1); former advisers at the Norwegian Nobel Institute. At the end, it is the Norwegian Nobel Committee who single handedly decides who wins the prize. Thus, the nominations per se means nothing and can be very subjective, since they are not required to meet any criterion for quality. There are consequently about 140 nominations every year for the peace prize. (For further info, read about the nomination process at the web-page of the The Norwegian Nobel Institute at http://www.nobel.no/index.html.) Further, the idea of Williams being nominated for the Nobel Prize in Litterature, makes JUST AS LITTLE sense. Any of the following people may nominate someone for the prize in litterature: members of the Swedish Academy and of other academies, institutions and societies similar to it in membership and aims; professors of literary and linguistic disciplines at universities and university colleges; former Nobel Laureates in Literature; presidents of authors’ organisations which are representative of the literary activities of their respective countries. But in the end, it is up to the Swedish Academy to single handedly decide who wins the prize. About 350 suggestions arrive each year. (For more info, see the webpage of the Swedish Academy at http://www.svenskaakademien.se/LitiumInformation/site/page.asp?Page=3&IncPage=158&Destination=158.) In short, in both instances, the nominations are purely a suggestion, and has no effect what so ever on the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee or the Swedish Academy respectively. PJ 14:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's all true. Nonetheless, the Nobel nominations figured large in accounts of Williams' case. They were highly publicized, unlike most nominations. While the nominations may have meant little to the prize committees, they meant a great deal to supporters and detractors. That's why they are included in the article. -Will Beback 21:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps that is true, Will Beback, and perhaps it does constitute a reason for including the mentioning of his nominations in this article. I am willing to conceed that. However, the reason for the high publicity can (I assume)only be due to a misunderstanding that such nominations actually mean something; because they don't. It is up to the Norwegian Nobel Committee and the Swedish Academy to decide the lauriates, and the nominations do not restrict nor have any formell effect on their judgments. It is, therefore, my opinion that this ought to be pointed out in the article, if we decide to include the mentioning of his nominations. This due to the fact that few people know about the decision making process for these prizes. Thus, not including such information, may provide the reader with a flase picture as to the importance of such nominations. PJ 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
To address that concern I've restored a sentence which was in the article for a while, "Any college humanities professor or national legislator may nominate any living individual for the prize, there being no specific qualifications screening." This article isn't about the Nobel prizes, so we need to keep it short. -Will Beback 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we ought to keep it short, and I have no major quarrel with the current wording. However, as I see it, the important thing to mention is that the Norwegian Nobel Committee and the Swedish Academy are in no way restricted to award the prize to those having been nominated. Thus, the nomination has no real value, it is nothing but an opportunity for people to voice their opinion. Williams was in no way any "closer" to gaining a Nobel Prize than he would have been without such nominations. PJ 17:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The most important point to make, I think, is that the Nobel Committee is not bound to those who have been nominated. The committee may choose to award who ever they see fit. PJ 09:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of centralized discussion on inclusion of Nobel Prize nominations in bios

I started a discussion at WP:VPP#Including alledged Nobel Prize nominations in bios on this issue. It may well eventually be moved off the Village Pump policy page at some point in the future, but it seemed a good place to get the discussion started. —Doug Bell talk 12:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit made to opening paragraph

Removed [8] as the page no longer exists, can not find another cite.--70.126.56.64 06:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the citation, though without the link of course since it's no longer on the web. I *think* I did the referencing right; looks ok to me anyway; let me know if it needs fixin'.--csloat 07:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

this guy should have not be executed he was part of the help

[edit] flags should come down

The flags should come down off the infobox. They don't contribute any information, they're visually distracting (they make the page too busy). The argument "all criminal bio has flags" is not true, and even if it were true it wouldn't matter, as WP:CCC. It's a variant argument of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There's no reason to have the flags here. — coelacan — 19:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No further objections raised, taking them down. — coelacan — 04:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I brought the problem here, please go to the page and discuss about all the flags on criminal articles. It will be decide dwhether to keep the flags on criminal articles or remove all of them, when consensus is reached. Wooyi 20:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] origin of gang name

Somebody just dropped this in after the sentence about the word Crips having no real meaning: "***Update - there is a literal meaning to the Name CRIP it is Community Reform Inner-Party Service which was created during the drafting of the CRIP constitution which was modeled on the Black Panther Party's 10-point program.***" There was no reference to back it up and that paragraph should be reworked anyway if it is to be included. Mwillia9 02:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no end to the imaginitve etymologies of "Crip". ·:·Will Beback ·:· 04:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Tec 9's and AK47's"

There is a sentence in the "botched robbery" section mentioning that Darryl had "two AK47's and Tec-9 submachine guns" in the trunk of the vehicle. That would not be possible as these murders took place in 1979 before the Tec-9 was even designed. The AK-47 did not enjoy that kind of popularity in the seventies in America, and it would have been unlikely that Tookie or any of his companions would have had access to one. Furthermore, I can find no evidence in court transcripts or reports of any of the people involved in these crimes having these weapons. No testimonials from the suspects involved. How would anyone could have known this?

It is bullshit. Remove it. My editing powers seem to be unavailable. This sentence was added by some dumbasses who couldn't use correct grammar, apparently someone gullible enough to believe it corrected it but never decided to question it's validity.


Further to the above - the Tec-9 is not a submachine gun. It is a handgun due to the fact that it is semi-automatic (and is classified as such by the US government, cf. the Wikipedia entry on Tec-9's). Groovenow (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Nobel-Peace-Prize-Nomination

To show has easy it is to obtain a Nobel Peace Prize nomination as the Williams case developed, Bill Handel, morning host on KFI 640 talk radio, had a California congressman nominate him for one on December 1, 2005.[9] Revolutionaryluddite 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Other, similar efforts were made as well. I don't think we need to list them in this article though. We already have some info in Nobel Peace Prize about the low threshold for nomination, but these nominations are more like publicity stunts than sober criticism. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Handel's stunt, though, was in direct response to actions by Williams promoting his peace prize nomination. I think it's relevant to this page. Revolutionaryluddite 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
But it's not something that the subject did, nor is it a direct commentary on the subject. The incident is already included in Handel's bio, because he's the one who did it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're getting at. Handel got himself nominated as a way of criticizing Williams; Handel did it in direct response to William's promotion as a Nobel Peace Prize nominee. I think it is "direct commentary". Revolutionaryluddite 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
A criticism of the nomination process belongs in the Peace Prize article. If Handel has made a direct criticism of the subject then that might be worth including in this article. The subject didn't nominate himself, and he didn't win, so I don't think the failed nomination is worth much attention in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Even though Williams didn't nominate himself, he's strongly promoted his nomination. His autobiography, Redemption : From Original Gangster to Nobel Prize Nominee - The Extraordinary Life Story of Stanley Tookie Williams, proclaims it on its title. Revolutionaryluddite 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
His nomination was frequently referred to in the media. See [10], [11], and [12]. Revolutionaryluddite 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Handel got his nomination to criticize Williams' supporters specifically, not the Nobel committee. See [13]. Revolutionaryluddite 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Your IMDB source says otherwise: "Handel gained the nomination to ridicule those attempting (unsuccessfully) to gain clemency for California death row inmate...." I wouldn't object to including a mention in the articles of those who nominated Williams. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
How does it say otherwise? The website says what it says: The reason Handel got his nomination was to mock Williams' supporters. Revolutionaryluddite 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I should also mention that this issue has been thrashed out at length previously on this page. Re-opening this can of worms would mean adding far more than just a mention of Handel's nomination. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Right now, the article mentions the nomination in the first paragraph- the can of worms is already opened. Revolutionaryluddite 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a considerably-shortened version of what's been in the article previously. If we add back the handel material we'd have to add back the whole section in order to balance the PR stunt by a local radio guy. If there's a consensus to return all that material then so be it. But I don't think that the nomination was that important. Over a hundred people are nominated annually, many of them with no more chance of winning than Williams. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree; being nominated is basically meaningless and to say that it's any kind of achievement is very dishonest. Nevertheless, Williams and his supporters have mentioned it over and over again. Revolutionaryluddite 04:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure his supporters would wish to have more about it, but that wouldn't be right either. We barely mention it now. If we were to add just one more fact about the nomination I can't believe we'd want it to be Handel's stunt. We barely even mention it in Handel's article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If the facts of his nomination aren't given any context, then the information really shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. Revolutionaryluddite 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Handel's stunt is not a fact of Williams' nomination, and it isn't context either. We mention the nomination because, as you point out, it was widely reported. But it's a minimal mention which is appropriate because we both agree that it isn't very significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Transcripts show that..."

Some of the information about this crime isn't very clear. The phrase "transcripts show that..." should never be used to show anything but that a particular witness or exhibit said or showed something. The court transcript cannot show that a person committed a murder, only that witnesses said he committed a murder and a judge convicted him of committing a murder. The court clerk is a publisher, not an author. The text afterward says that Williams "shot out a security monitor", but it gives me no idea whether there's a videotape out there showing him pointing a gun at a camera and then it goes dead, or whether the VHS tape and/or hard drive of the main security computer system was totally destroyed and useless as evidence. I think if the sources were cited this confusion would automatically have been cleared up. 70.15.116.59 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living persons

Please remember that any surviving descendents or associates of Williams are subject to the WP:BLP policy, which is one of the biggest monkey-wrenches Wikipedia can throw into the workings of eager editors. Specifically note the text on privacy of names: "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." 70.15.116.59 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


It says Bush could not pardon him and only the govenor of California could do so. Yet I've read in many other places that the President of the United States can pardon anyone. Which is correct? 76.64.205.57 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Gamma