Talk:Stanley Williams/Archives/2005/November

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

This is a talk_page archive covering the month of November 2005. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion for any new comments, or Archives for an overview of the archives.


old comments

Well its clear that this post has become dominated by those who want him executed and side with the prosecution. Lots of information about the crime, very little on the inconsistancies of the case and the significance of the mans work over the past 20 years. I would edit, but why bother, the executioners have won and continue to write history according to the official establishment-approved story.


I think he should be liable for his actions, he murdered 4 people, and be considered for the numerous deaths due to the crips since he is a founder. Just not the death penalty, life in prison is better. If he does die on 12-13-2005 be sure to have an up-heavel of gang crime around america. -Bailey Canderly, 15, North Carolina

William's execution date is coming up, so this article might get controversial.


I added a note on William's peace prize nomination. An exaggeratted version of this fact was put here in the past and reverted as non-notable and unverifiable. I'm not sure if a nobel peace prize nomination is notable or not. For verification, I found many references to his 2001 nomination by "Swedish parliamentarians":

William's nomination for the peace prize is referred to in this ACLU article: http://www.aclunc.org/pressrel/021107-stanley_williams.html

A quote attributed by the San Francisco Chronicle to judge Procter Hug Jr. of the 9th circuit court, part of the panel which denied Williams' appeal:

“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, subtitled ‘Tookie Speaks Out Against Gang Violence,’ and his creation of the Internet Project for Street Peace,” the judge wrote. “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.”

Newspaper articles refer to this as a postscript to the decision written by Proctor Hug Jr., but I can't find the original source. The decision on the 9th circuit's web page is here: [1]

Elsewhere, I've seen it written that he got 2 peace prize nominations, or 5 peace prize and 4 literature nominations. This one 2001 nomination for the peace prize at least seems true.

Jeff

Nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize have little notability or verifiability. It is not notable because any college social sciences professor or any national legislator may make a nomination, for any reason, and around 130 people are nominated annually. The only requirement is that the nominee is alive. Further, nominations are kept secret by the Prize Committee, so nominations are only known if the nominator publicizes it. I haven't seen any source that identifies Williams' nominator(s). I did find an email from 2002 saying that there was an effort to renominate him, but admitted that there was no chance of winning, saying that it was only being done to draw additional attention to his case. So, if we phrase it as part of the publcity effort of his defenders, then it might have some relevance. Otherwise, I'm inclined to remove it on general prinicple. -Willmcw 21:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Email here: [2]. -Willmcw 06:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The email, which was circulated to obtain co-nominators, says:
  • Obviously we have no expectation that Tookie will actually be awarded the Peace Prize, but the publicity from simply being nominated is of considerable value. As Tookie's case reaches a critical stage, this publicity might play a role in not only raising awareness for his work, but also in saving his life.

Voices out of Europe

Many people in Europe are watching the Williams case and are not convinced of his guilt for murder [3]. The evidence does not seem so overwhelming. We consider this article to be POV. --Ulenspiegel 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

---And? This is the Wikipedia, so feel free to provide any balancing information you want. You do realize you care allowed to edit the article, right? Calwatch 03:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

---"We" consider this article to be...


The above comments are inappropriate and irrelevant.


 (No, they were inappropriate.  Now they are gone.  That is the appropriate response to irrelevant and ad hominem attacks on a discussion page.)

The only question here is presenting verifiable information with a neutral point of view. It is verifiable that Williams was tried and convicted of the murders. It is also verifiable that some people dispute the correctness of the verdict. Both sides should be represented though they are not equally significant views and should not receive equal treatment. -Willmcw 08:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are no rules for talk. It would be inappropriate to discuss the case in the article itself but discussion of the case is perfectly file in talk (after all, WTF does it say "discuss this page"?)
 Your obscenity ("WTF"), adhominem attacks, and irrelevant rants will NOT be tolerated.  

Calwatch 06:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
---This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is supposed to present only factual information. Here, the factual information is that Stanley Williams was convicted on four counts of murder. To say that it is also a "fact" that a few people believe Williams is somehow innocent is like saying that it's a fact that supporters of convicts always believe their convicted friend to be innocent. It's like adding a mention that the accused's attorney believed his client to be innocent. It has no place in this article. There's not even a controversy concerning his guilt. There's no reason to insert a pro-Williams "opposing view" in an article simply meant to quickly summarize his life and crimes and the news-worthy events that currently surround him.
Some people dispute the "correctness" (?) of every verdict. However, given that he has been convicted by a court of law, it is accurate to label him as having committed the act until a court of law decides otherwise. We can also present any legitimate evidence of his innocence as part of the article as well, while noting that he has, indeed, been convicted.Xinoph 23:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
So should the U.S. legal system be upheld as reliable, more so than other legal systems, for example Zimbabwe? Remember where you are, this isn't America, this is Wikipedia, and we hold ourselves to a higher standard of neutrality. — PhilHibbs | talk 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
---Voices out of Europe - Please read the Los Angeles District Attorney's response to clemency. It discusses all the facts in the case and the history of violence and mayhem that the convicted murderer Stanley Williams has been responsible for. There are no more appeals to go through for him. Not one appeals court has found a discrepancy in the case to say that the Attorney's acted inappropriately or that there was insufficient evidence to overturn the conviction or the special circumstances (death penalty).

If you don't believe in the death penalty, Europe, I can respect your beliefs. If you say that he can do more good alive than dead, that is also a debateable topic. However, I must implore you to look at all the evidence and eyewitness accounts leading up to and resulting in four murders. He killed Albert Owens in cold blood, to not leave a witness. That is indisputable. Please respond as to why the sentence should not be carried out to the fullest extent of the law.

There's never any sympathy from the left wing for the victim. Imagine being Albert Owens, trying to do your menial job, and then you find yourself with a shotgun at your back being robbed for $120. Imagine what he must have been thinking about? His family? You beg and plead. Tookie is concern about witnesses so he fires. As the shotgun fired and you lie there, with your life draining away, unable to breathe in intense pain. Williams laughs grabs his $120. Williams will fry and the country will be a better place for it. Barneygumble 21:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a sad day when someone argues that the 'left' or 'Europe' has no sympathy for the victim simply because they look towards the day when America stops the cycle of violence and revenge, as the European Union has done, by moving towards an end to the death penalty. More killing serves no one. Many from Europe look with heavy hearts at the murder and death that pervades American culture, and feel that ending revenge killings by the state would only move America closer to a more peaceful society. That is my hope, and that is a hope for a future with fewer victims. The cycle of violence must end, every one of us must be mature enough to set an example for our children. - Solar 17:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The Cycle of Violence? That suggests that if Tookie's death sentence was communed, the crime rate would go down. It also suggests that the cause of crime in the first place was other people getting punished. Has stopping the death penalty stopped violence in Europe? Hardly. The "revenge killing" serves no one? What about the families of the loved ones that were killed? Tookie is asking for mercy that he did not show his victims. Barneygumble 19:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can you folks please find another forum to discuss your feelings about capital punishment? This page is only for discussions of this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 23:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, commentary about the article is certainly fair game, and should be encouraged. (See [4]) As long as the page doesn't get too unwieldy, I don't see why the people that want to discuss side issues can't use the space and the rest of us can just use some other space on the talk page. Calwatch 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that he should be free because they have no proof of him killing anyone! I mean okay, he made the crips but it's not like he made a group of people be in the gang! I think that it is racism. I put it like this: No proof, No crime! in order to have crime you have to have proof! Email Me at J_Monee07@blackplanet.com


Commentary about our article is certainly encouraged. -Willmcw 04:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Crip history

The opening paragraph makes it sound like the Crips didn't become a gang until after Tookie's incarceration:

Stanley "Tookie" Williams (born December 29, 1953) was the founder, along with Raymond Washington, of the Crips, a Los Angeles, California youth protection organization that grew, after Williams' incarceration and Washington's murder, into one of the most widely-known and notorious street gangs.

According to this history of street gangs:

http://www.streetgangs.com/history/hist01.html

The Crips were engaged in violent activity since at least 1972. This paragraph should be rewritten to make it clear that although it may have grown after Tookie's incarceration, it was a gang almost from the start. 05:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.139.49.248 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I removed "...a Los Angeles, California youth protection organization that grew, after Williams' incarceration and Washington's murder, into..." Many street gangs were nominally formed for protection. -Willmcw 06:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


This article is written more like a story than a NPOV article. Phrases like a: "humble father"?
The new opening paragraph belongs more under an entry for Owens and not for Williams. Plus, as opposed to giving any history of the man prior to the murder.. there is only a touching story, obviously from the point of view of the murdered, with excessive detail on Owens. Its not a very detailed account of the case or Williams' life. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 62.194.19.93 (talk • contribs)

Article Improvement Drive nomination

I just nominated this as an article for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. As I stated in the nomination:

* Stanley "Tookie" Williams, one of the founders of the Crips street gang is currently in the news because of his pending 13 December 2005 execution date, and the consideration of his clemency appeal to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That means that many people will be looking at the Wikipedia article to find out more information. The current article is not bad, but I'm sure that it could be much better. Among other items, the handling of citations needs to be upgraded to current Wikipedia standards.

Because this article will be receiving more attention during the next few weeks, we should try a little harder to improve the article, as well as keeping an eye out for the accompanying vandalism. BlankVerse 13:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The Improvement Drive is needed because there are inconsistencies in the victims' names. If we cannot even keep their names straight, how can we tell that the stories are correct?

NOTE: There are currently two votes for the Stanley Williams article at AID. The article needs a third vote by 6 December to remain listed. BlankVerse 22:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yang family "allegedly murdered"

The "Murders" section says that the Yang family was "allegedly murdered". I have heard that Williams maintains his innonence of the crimes he was convicted of, but he was in fact convicted. Shouldn't it just say "murdered", not "allegedly murdered", since "allegedly" generally means the person was accused and not (yet) convicted? It seems like POV otherwise, since the findings of the court are legally established "facts". Mike Dillon 15:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Prior to the trial he was an alleged murderer, after the trial he was a convicted murderer. Now some allege that he is innocent. However has been legally proven that he is a murderer. -Willmcw 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

He is a convicted murderer. The article, in my opinion, shouldn't say anything beyond that. The fact, established and provable, that he was convicted of murder does not mean that he is in fact a murderer. To say he's a murderer is a gross violation of NPOV. Just state the facts (that he was convicted of murder) and let the readers make up their own minds. Is Nelson Mandella refered to as a terrorist on his page?

Not everyone puts as much blind faith in the objective fact finding power of the American justice system as you might. 207.6.31.119 23:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not a violation of NPOV to call a convicted murderer a murderer anymore than it is a violation to call an elected governor a governor. NPOV does require that we represent all viewpoints, including those that dispute the conviction. However the presence of a dispute does not mean that he hasn't been found guilty of the murders. Under the American legal system, those charged are presumed innocent until conviction. After conviction, they are presumed guilty. -Willmcw 01:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
The individual you're responding to (207.6.31.119)is using Wikipedia as a propaganda vehicle. Hopefully, the admins will ban the user from making further edits.
Bloody Canadian. His whole government is falling and all he can do is complain about "Tookie." 69.140.7.225 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've made a lot more useful edits on wikipedia than you have, sir. Do you care to back up your accusations with any evidence? The admins, I'm sure, will not have the same fascist attitude towards others that you have.

Making edits that you don't happen to agree with is a petty and lame reason to want someone banned. I challenge you to actually contact an admin about this and see what they have to say.

I notice you didn't even have the courage to sign your post. 207.6.31.119 03:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please everybody, let's focus on the edits, not the editors. -Willmcw 04:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)