Can we please get a quick support/oppose on the following wording for the first sentence, which I pulled from a December 2016 revision? VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

• Support. VQuakr (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because it duplicates info from two sentences later. If you want to rewrite the rest of the paragraph, though, I'd probably support the above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 for Cullen's explanation below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nixon Now (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is similar to text that was present when the article was promoted to FA status, and I would support it for now as a status quo to be returned to. I think we can later deliberate over further modifications. Thank you VQuakr for setting up the poll. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this still puts his activism and journalism before his murderer status which is not why he's notable. He became more of an activist and journalist while in prison for the murder of Faulkner. I still think the first thing we need to say is that he's a convicted murderer, and then go on to other stuff, Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're conflating cause with more important and effect with less important. Just because one thing led to another doesn't mean the first thing is the more notable. LBJ became President as a consequence of JFK's assassination but that doesn't mean his being VP under JFK or JFK being assassinated is the most important thing about LBJ - it doesn't even make the first paragraph of the Lyndon B. Johnson article. Nixon Now (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we should make clear that said activism and journalism was mainly from death row and subsequently as an inmate. I would lead with convicted for murder, and then note hos activities from prison.Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose. It looks to me like sources tend to talk about his activities more than his conviction, though of course they're inextricably linked. I can see the argument that we need to explain why he's in prison before everything that came afterwards, but I still think that policy suggests we focus on what the sources focus on, which is mostly his activism and journalism. I would strongly oppose any use of "convicted murderer", as some reliable sources do discuss his possible innocence, as illustrated in the article. All sources agree that he was "convicted for murder" but not that he is a "murderer". Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar: so why do you weakly oppose a wording that mentions journalism first and avoids the phrase "convicted murderer"? VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a DUE issue: 4 vague words about his activities versus 20 very specific words about his conviction, when sources appear to care more about the activism and journalism. I'm sorry, I think I was distracted while writing that and I certainly could have been more clear. Woodroar (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support When we say in Wikipedia's voice that he was convicted of the murder, we are stating a fact. When we call him a "convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice, we are asserting a disputed fact that he and his defense team have contested for decades. I do not consider that appropriate for a BLP. The distinction may seem minor but it is significant. If the rest of the opening paragraph needs a minor rewrite to eliminate redundancy, then so be it. We should be guided by the wording when the article was promoted to FA, unless there are strong reasons for major revisions to the lead paragraph. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We normally list the reason a person became notable first. His notability stems from being a convicted murdered. Until he assassinated Daniel Faulkner, he was a non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Cullen328 Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If the claim hadn't been made that he was wrongly convicted, if there was no "Free Mumia" campaign, no one would know who he was. He's notable because he's a political activist who's imprisoned for murder (and was on death row). Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportThe only thing I would suggest is avoiding the flip side of the coin. Avoid anything in Wikipedia voice that would imply that he is in fact innocent. Convicted of murder and convicted murderer are distinctive enough to make the change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One who has been convicted of murder is a murderer. There is a judicial outcome that says he committed murder. In fact, there have been more than one of those, since there were retrials. The fact that we are tiptoeing around it is ridiculous. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One who murders is a murderer. Johnny Frank Garrett is one of those cases where a person convicted of a murder isn't a murder. He was executed for but innocent of the crime in question. But that's a whole other conversation. Cullen offers a persuasive argument. Further this dance has few moves. It's more of a two step. Mentioning that he is convicted of murder does little to facially change the article and no one can in wikipedia voice imply that he is innocent.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong. He is a convicted murderer. He HAS been convicted of it (more than once). If by some miracle he were exonerated, he'd no longer be convicted murderer. We're not even saying he is a murderer, but that he's a CONVICTED murderer. And this discussion is more than "convicted murderer vs convicted of murder", it's about how far down into the lead it's buried. If you had no knowledge of this case, you'd think he was some notable activist do-gooder who caught a murder charge. No, he is a murderer who used his platform to gain some fame for himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get one thing straight: most editors acknowledge the very significant distinction between "convicted murderer vs convicted of murder." The distinction being, as Cullen328 explained, "When we say in Wikipedia's voice that he was convicted of the murder, we are stating a fact. When we call him a "convicted murderer" in Wikipedia's voice, we are asserting a disputed fact that he and his defense team have contested for decades." This issue shouldn't be muddied through vague and incorrect editorial pronouncements that the statements are equivalent. They're not. -Darouet (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's get something else straight: Cook has been convicted more than once. The fact that he denies it is immaterial. Many convicts deny committing their crimes. We have multiple judicial verdicts saying he committed murder. Let's stop acting like this is some tabloid allegation or the result of some kangaroo court. And how do we justify burying this very important item that is truly the source of his notability so far down? If anything, at least push that to the top, since that's how he became notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And interestingly enough the article will say that he is convicted of murder.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it will soft-pedal the fact that he's a convicted murderer and bury the fact that his path to notability was built on the assassination of Daniel Faulkner. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except they can't do that. They can't say that he is innocent in wikipedia voice. They can't change the weight of the article to make it seem as if he's innocent. Actually the only thing that will be able to change that is if his current and following appeal is successful.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What? The current version DOES bury it. The proposed version makes the murder conviction look like an after-thought. You're so wrapped up in whose "voice" that you're missing the bigger picture. He was completely non-notable until he became a murderer. Everything else has sprung from that. We should lead with it before the parade of accolades that make him sound like some bystander. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

::::::*You seem to have the mistaken belief that we can't have an opinion. Merely having a personal opinion doesn't necessarily create a bias. If I were actually trying to introduce the term into the article, you'd have grounds to discuss a bias. Right now, we're just discussing where in the lead his murder conviction actually belongs, a conviction we both agree belongs in the article. I'm sorry you're having difficulty keeping up. I'll slow it down for you sunshine. Wouldn't want you to feel excluded. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is basically how we now describe Abu-Jamal: "Activist. Journalist. Black Nationalist. Supporter of MOVE. Member of the Black panther Party. Radio Reporter. President of an association. Oh yeah, and he took a murder rap." It would be laugh-out-loud laughable if it were not so cluelessly amateurish and embarrassing to the encyclopedia. This will at least move his status up to the first sentence, where it belongs, and I support it. Marteau (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have re-considered and have struck out my previous !vote. He is, in fact, a convicted murderer according to multiple reliable sources including the New York Times and legal scholar Eugene Volokh.
• Oppose we should list him being a convicted murderer first. All else is secondary to his notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the current version of this article is Wikipedia actively promoting fake news. If you google Mumia Abu Jamal right now Google’s search returns Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American political activist and journalist who became involved in black nationalism in the 1970s. This is not at all why this person is notable. The article needs to include his conviction for murder in the opener as per the status when this article was promoted to Featured. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "Duck Duck Go" search does the same. Here's what Duck Duck Go returns on searching "Mumia Abu-Jamal" Mumia Abu-Jamal is an American political activist and journalist who became involved in black nationalism in the 1970s. He is a supporter of the MOVE Organization, and was also a member of the Black Panther Party until October 1970 but left the party and became a radio reporter, eventually becoming president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists.More at Wikipedia And with any editor who changes the lead being threatened with a block until "consensus" is achieved, it could remain this way for months or longer. That the article was locked down in the middle of an edit war on this version is completely embarrassing and was completely avoidable with just a little forethought. That any editor, much less an administrator, can think it's acceptable to have mention his being convicted of killing a cop occur only after his tenure as "president of the Philadelphia Association of Black Journalists" is astonishing. Marteau (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose His primary notability stems from his conviction for murder. What he has done since his conviction is "aftermath", for which a neutral perspective would not call for his journalism & activism to be noted in the opening paragraph. His journalism and activation should be in the closing paragraph of the "lead" section. Vwanweb (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The idea that Mumia is first and foremost notable for being a convicted murderer is simply wrong. Leaving aside the question of his guilt, he's notable because enough people saw him as a political prisoner and that's why his case has received so much attention. If everyone had agreed from the beginning that his arrest and trial had been fair, he would have been executed in the 90s without anyone outside Philadelphia ever learning his name. -- irn (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean the arrest and multiple trials that ended in multiple convictions for.....wait for it... murdering Daniel Faulkner? Agin, it all stems from that single cowardly criminal action. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you being so rude and aggressive? You've made the same point repeatedly in this thread, and you didn't even respond to the crux of my argument: If everyone had agreed from the beginning that his arrest and trial had been fair, he would have been executed in the 90s without anyone outside Philadelphia ever learning his name. -- irn (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointing out the obvious isn't rude. (Don't you just love when people link you to stuff you know darn well that they've read?) The so-called crux of your argument doesn't even address that actual point I made. Whether we say "convicted murderer" or "convicted of murder", it still goes in the front of the list. THAT is where the notability springs from. Your hypothetical argument actually reinforces that. And "everyone" rarely agrees with a trail. Thousands and thousands of people plead not guilty every year. The jury disagrees and they go to jail. A handful get attention. Cop-killers often being part of that handful. But it all still starts with his murder conviction and that should be up front. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you accusing me of sock/meat puppetry? And, of course, pointing out the obvious isn't rude. What's rude was your style of argumentation: a sarcastic rhetorical question with gratuitous snark thrown in the middle.

The problem with your "springs from" line of argumentation is that simply being convicted of murdering a police officer wouldn't have been enough on its own. Not every person who has been convicted of killing a police officer since 1981 is notable enough for their own article. There were other factors that were also necessary, and it's the combination of these factors that make him notable. Also, just because one thing is identified as some sort of originating point for notability doesn't mean that it has to go first in the description. The Donald Trump article is an obvious example. -- irn (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Where on earth do you see a sock puppet allegation? Your "problem" with the 'springs from' line isn't accurate. Nobody claimed that every cop killer is notable. But that 'combination of factors" never happens without the murder conviction. Nice try with the Trump bio. If Cook ever gets elected President, I'll change my position on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose He's famous for murdering someone, everything else stems from that. He wouldn't have an article without his murder. 50.201.228.202 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support In my opinion without citing any Wikipedia policy, the main issue is that search engines like to index things, give us little tidbits of facts so that we can get a brief sentence overview of a person we search for without any of the supporting details. In most cases, it's exactly what we're looking for--for semi known/niche people, all people need is a simple sentence to tell who that person is. In this case, because some Wikipedia editor decided to rearrange things, perhaps in a chronological order or in supporting order, it messed things up. Citing Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPCRIME states we shouldn't include any information has committed a crime without a conviction, a standard that this article has met the threshold for. Therefore, I do not believe that stating he was convicted for murder violates any WP:BLP concern, even looking at some of the RS where he has claimed innocence. I also note that it is strange that an administrator has required that there be consensus for such an edit to the lead, given WP:BRD is an essay that states when there is a stalemate, sometimes a bold edit is just what is needed. But of course it can be abused, and maybe caution could be advised. I also agree with other editors in noting that if not for the conviction for murder, the person may not have met notability standards at all, and being convicted is what primarily led him to become an activist. So even if we weren't trying to do it to appease some multinational corporation's need to have things concise in a search engine, it's important to have it in the lead sentence for context purposes. I hope this resolves itself quickly. Tutelary (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and refer to "gun homicide of Daniel Faulkner" instead of "murder of Daniel Faulkner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.62.188 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)— 124.171.62.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As there has been no activity on this straw poll for 13 days, and as it seems to me that consensus is not obvious, I have requested a closer for this at the Requests for Closure notice board. Marteau (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]