Talk:Julius Jones (prisoner)

Murderer or Criminal not Prisoner

Why does the opening sentence refer to Julius Jones as an American prisoner? He is a murderer and criminal. Ted Bundy is not referred to on his page as "was an American prisoner who was convicted of killing X". Julius Jones was convicted of murder. His conviction was upheld in all of his appeals. This is not up for debate. It's factually true. He is notable because of the murder he committed. Kim Kardashian and The Innocence Fraud are not reliable sources, sorry. It should be changed to "Julius Darius Jones (born July 25, 1980) is an American murderer...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:8D80:A560:F462:744:9F3D:BCEF (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This Article Omits GUILTY PLEA to Armed Robbery/Carjacking

This bio portrays Jones falsely that he only committed petty theft, when in fact he has 7 felonies including violent crime as he pled guilty to armed robbery in which he held a gun to the head of Dr. Anan Lapsie of OKC. The other felonies are firearms charges related to the crimes. Further, the bio states Jones has 1 active sentence but he has 3 and will serve 20-40 years after life sentence without parole. Oklahoma does not allow more than one commutation. Addtionally, Jones was charged but not tried in several other crimes, leading police on high speed chase twice in residential neighborhoods, and was implicated in another carjacking Too many activists rather than journalists are trying to remake this page. Each time I have uploaded Jones violent criminal charges and his guilty plea to Armed Robbery, it is deleted for spurious reasons saying it is disputed or copyrighted, etc. Activists need to write fiction, this wikipedia if it remains credible needs to have facts, not advocacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CB:C300:690:D9F0:4A5B:D65D:E3EE (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Offender: Julius D. Jones OK DOC#: 270147 Status: ACTIVE Photos

Julius Jones criminal record from Oklahoma Department of Corrections

https://okoffender.doc.ok.gov/ Image Date: 2/5/2018

Appearance & Identifiers Gender: Male Race: Black Height: 5 ft 9 in Weight: 161 lbs Hair Color: Black Eye Color: Brown Alias: Darius Jones

OK DOC#: 270147

Birth Date: 7/25/1980

Current Facility: LEX ASSESSMENT & RECEPTION CENTER, LEXIN

Reception Date: 4/29/2002

Sentences

CRF# Court Offense Conviction Date Term Term Code Reception Date Discharged Date

99-5144 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT ROBBERY/ATT W/DANG WEAP(3RD CONVICTION) 6/13/2006 12 Y Incarceration 6/13/2006 4/5/2017

99-5144 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT CON/FELONS PROHIB/CARRY FIREARMS 6/13/2006 12 Y Incarceration 6/13/2006 3/9/2012

98-7151 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT MISUSE OF FORGED/COUNTERFEIT/SUSPENDED D 12/1/1998 11 Y Probation 5/8/1998 5/7/2009

98-7151 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT MISUSE OF FORGED/COUNTERFEIT/SUSPENDED D 12/1/1998 3 Y Probation 12/1/1998 11/30/2001

99-4373 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT CON/FELONS PROHIB/CARRY FIREARMS 4/19/2002 15 Y Incarceration Active

99-4373 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT CONSPIRACY 4/19/2002 25 Y Incarceration Active

99-4373 OKLAHOMA COUNTY COURT MURDER FIRST DEGREE 4/19/2002 LIFEWOP Life w/o Parole 4/29/2002 Active

The Black Wall Street Times

Is the The Black Wall Street Times a reliable source for a biography? DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

For facts of the case I would say debatable because it will be bias in favor of Jones. However, for simple facts about his early life like where he went to school, his upbringing, DOB, etc. it should be reliable. The DOB it lists matches the one from the OKDOC website. There really isn't any reason for them to not fact check info like that. Inexpiable (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Officially declaring him dead

Do we know when the execution will take place (as in regard to the time)? Are there any reliable sources for it so we can change it once Jones is dead? I know some people are holding out for a pardon, but it’s too late at this point in all honesty. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The execution is scheduled around 4pm local time in Oklahoma. As soon as the news is announced it will be updated on here quickly. Inexpiable (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't believe you forgot about commutations. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

alright, thank you Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggested move

No one calls him "Julius Darius Jones" in the media. This should be "Julius Jones (XXX)", where "XXX" is some kind of disambiguator. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Suggest criminal probably, seems the standard disambiguator in Category:American male criminals is "criminal" or (more commonly) the type of crime (e.g. murderer, serial killer, etc). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bueller 007: You really should have done this properly through a RM rather than just boldly doing it. Criminal is a controversial title to use given the nature and sensitivity surrounding the case. See my comments below. Inexpiable (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hair

The article states: "Witnesses at the time reported seeing a black man with a red bandana and 1–2 inches of hair showing between his ear and wave cap shoot Howell. Jones had a shaved head at the time."

However, all photos of Jones that are available online (before the crime, his mugshot, at trial) show very clearly that he has hair and does not have a smooth, bald head. Thus there is no discrepancy in this regard between the witness statements and his appearance at the time. Clearly this should be amended in the article. 2A01:CB04:86D:4300:6D3B:D224:FB4F:F237 (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's an ambiguous use of the word "shaved". If it means shaved with a razor such that he was completely bald, it appears to be false. If it means shaved with trimmers (i.e., "closely shaved"), then it could be correct. I've heard that what you've said is correct, but I haven't seen the evidence one way or the other. As I mentioned in an edit summary, VICE says it was "closely shaved", representjustice.org says it was "nearly shaved", kfor says it was "Not shaved but incredibly short". If it is in fact the case that he had a "closely shaved" head at the time, the statement about his hair length should just be removed altogether. The only reason it is included at the moment is that the person who added it presumably thought that a shaved head (in the sense of baldness) was exculpatory evidence. But almost any hairstyle at all other than baldness or a mohawk, etc. would be completely compatible with the description of an inch of hair (not inch-long hair) showing below the stocking cap. The statement about hair seems unremarkable because almost anyone would match that description, and I think reference to hair should just be removed altogether. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Name change

This really should have been done via a request move. Julius Jones (criminal) is a controversial name title, to avoid POV and BLP concerns I think if this needed to be done, it should be Julius Jones (prisoner). The whole point of his case is the doubt of his guilt, criminal seems a little insensitive and controversial. Prisoner is the safer more neutral option. Or just go with Julius Jones as I personally think he is the primary topic over some minor American football player who hasn't played a game in 11 years. Inexpiable (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, you know what, I’ll just ask: how does this RM thing work? Because (Prisoner) seems the ideal middle ground here. There are a few sources that do cast doubt on this conviction, and “Criminal” really is an infuriatingly biased term that should not be used when there does seem to be reasonable doubt. Goddale120 (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I should add, of course, this being Wikipedia, all that is done here is reporting the facts wi5 due weight. If there is a vast majority of sources that lend support to the appending of the term “Criminal” to the article trial, than so be it. Goddale120 (talk) 04:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a few typos in my last message there. Just wanted to acknowledge that. I know I shouldn’t edit my comments after posting. Goddale120 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Goddale120: I've started a requested move discussion. Please share your thoughts down below if you think prisoner is the better term to go with then please add your support, or oppose if you don't think so. Thanks. Inexpiable (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Overall there is a rough consensus for the proposed title, with rationale  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Julius Jones (criminal) → Julius Jones (prisoner) – I think criminal is an insensitive/controversial title given the controversy and sensitivity surrounding his case. The whole reason his case has attracted international attention is because there is a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of any crime. This is a sensitive subject with strong opinions on both sides. Prisoner seems the more/most appropriate/neutral term to go with as that is effectively what he now is given the life without parole sentence. I believe now he's off death row he is probably not the primary topic anymore either and the page titled just Julius Jones should remain a disambiguation page. Inexpiable (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

While I do support renaming, I am uncertain prisoner is the most appropriate term either, after reading WP:NDESC. May I suggest "Convict" instead? Consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, I see a definition as: "One convicted in a judicial investigation of a punishable offence". It seems to be more neutral than either "Prisoner" or "Criminal", while also still explicitly identifying who he is as a person convicted of an offence.

I'll include a citation to that dictionary entry here as well. Sorry I can't include a URL, I couldn't find one that did not include my university in the address. I also will refrain from voting for now, as my previous experience has mostly been simply edits. I hope this comment is useful to the discussion though!

"convict, n.1". OED Online. December 2021. Oxford University Press. Goddale120 (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Prisoner or convict works. Inexpiable (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Prisoner seems the more/most appropriate/neutral term to go with as that is effectively what he now is given the life without parole sentence.
— User:Inexpiable 16:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree here, but I'm not sure what you mean by he's effectively a prisoner now (but not a criminal?). Do you mean that now he's a wrongfully imprisoned person? Jones' sentence was commuted (as in punishment was lessened) but guilt was 'not' removed. Jones is still a criminal as in a person who was found guilty and convicted of committing crime. The label of criminal applies here until the conviction is overturned. The title of criminal is neutral as it's just a statement of the facts here. Prisoner is less precise and less neutral because it suggests maybe he was not convicted, since a prisoner can also be somebody that was wrongfully imprisoned. You wouldn't suggest that we should also change the info box in the article that lists: criminal penalty, victims, criminal status etc. would you? This can't be the first time something like this has been discussed but I'm having trouble finding rules/guidance on these cases. These definitions and labels are tricky and have different usage colloquially vs legally. I o understand though your concern because I feel like criminal colloquially also has implications of a professional whose chooses crime as a job. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding you. Jamarsh1 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Move to Julius Jones. By pageviews and long-term notability, he is the primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is untrue that this page has more page views. Page views in last 30 days is 8k while Julius Jones the football player has 171K page views in the last 30 days. I'm not sure how to weigh notability of a criminal or maybe a wrongfully convicted person vs a former NFL player.Jamarsh1 (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note that both articles were recently moved. The death-row inmate was previously at Julius Darius Jones, and the football player was at Julius Jones. Also, Julius Darius Jones was created on November 13, so there wouldn't be any page views before then. 162 etc. (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Clearly criminal should not be used here and either prisoner or convict is a fine alternative. Mannysoloway (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Criminal carries a very negative connotation, one of certain guilt, and considering the specfic crime people are overwhelmingly looking at this page for is of questionable guilt, it implies bias to state he is a criminal. Prisoner is just a neutral term that everyone can agree is correct Epsilon1312 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should remain criminal or be changed to convict.

Prisoner seems less neutral and less precise. The term prisoner can also include somebody unlawfully confined or somebody that isn't necessarily guilty of a crime like a prisoner of war or even victim of a kidnapper.

Criminal or convict means somebody that has been convicted of a crime. The subject of the article was convicted of a crime, which means having been declared guilty by the justice system. Jones' death sentence was commuted to life without parole. This doesn't mean he was exonerated and found not guilty, this means the punishment for the crime was reduced.

If you read WP:NDESC there is even an example where they describe how allegation or alleged should be avoided except when the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under the law with reliable sources. Changing from criminal to prisoner seems to suggests maybe this person wasn't convicted of a crime.

I think we should hold off changing disamb from criminal to prisoner until/if Jones is exonerated. If a criminal or convict was later exonerated of their crimes then I think (former prisoner) or (wrongfully convicted) might be appropriate? Interestingly, I was looking at List of wrongful convictions in the United States and they still have the disambiguation as (convict) on these articles, for example John Gordon (convict). Jamarsh1 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You make good points, though I must observe that just as “Prisoner” is less neutral, so is “Criminal”, though in the opposite manner. I would therefore like to reiterate my suggestion from 3 days ago to change the term used for this article to “Convict” in order to better adhere to WP:NDESC.

Your final comment upon List of wrongful convictions in the United States is quite an interesting observation, by the way. Perhaps the terminology used within that article warrants a reevaluation itself, but that is a matter for another time. Goddale120 (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged murder

It's not alleged he is convicted of the crime. As such, the subject head should be modified to implicit his guilt, not his "alleged" innocence. 2600:1014:B1D1:842B:1477:3C59:A662:E63C (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Temporarily protecting the page

@Inexpiable: Wondering if we should (again) temporarily protect the page. There has been use of unreliable sources and extremely biased edits by IP addresses and unconfirmed users many times over the past two months. Mukedits (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mukilteoedits: Yeah maybe worth mentioning over there. There's been a few poor edits lately: from both supporters of Jones and people who believe he's guilty. Unfortunately a sensitive topic like this attracts people with strong views on both sides who don't want to create a neutral article. See how it continues for now. Inexpiable (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)