Talk:Willie Horton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Criminal justice Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.
WikiProject Crime To-do:

Contents

[edit] Case for a Name Change

I think that there could be a good case for changing this article from Willie Horton to William Horton. Although I realize he is known as Willie Horton by the general public, it is well-documented that he goes by "William." He was renamed "Willie" by Republicans in order to, to put it bluntly, seem "blacker." Titling this article "Willie Horton" merely continues this misconstruction of the facts. It is unfair. Articles that are titled according to a person's nickname ("Bill" Clinton" rather than William; "Dick" Cheney rather than Richard") are alright because that is how the subject prefers to be referred. This is not the case with this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.155.103 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please re-title this article from Willie Horton to William Horton

....in its current form, it is quite unfair to the former All-Star baseball player - Willie Horton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckjav (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, both of these people are known to the public almost excusively as "Willie." There is probably no way out of this. Each article has a dab reference at the top ... 75.71.67.2 (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Point

I want to make a point here since this article seems to have a 'tit for tat' argumentation between Republicans and Democrats. Al Gore DID mention the furlough program in the context of the NY Daily News debate. He did NOT mention Willie Horton by name nor did he run a commercial with Horton's picture. BUT BUSH DID NOT RUN A COMMERCIAL WITH HORTON EITHER!! Bush DID mention Horton by name at least twice, once at the Texas GOP Convention in June 88 and in the first debate on 9/25/88. Bush DID run a furlough commercial, a rather misleading one - but that commercial DID NOT feature either Horton's picture or mention his race.

But it is ALSO true that the Bush campaign FOUND OUT ABOUT Horton by watching the NY debate. Hence, they discovered Horton because of Gore's reference. I will concede that they probably would have found out about it anyway since they were combing for information as all campaigns do. Yet if the argument is that Gore's mention was somehow okay because he didn't run a commercial about it, it seems pretty inconsistent to blame Bush when he also didn't run a commercial featuring Horton.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[edit] Point

Why does it say that Gore "mentioned the Horton incident" in the NY Daily News Debate when he absolutely did not? Gore only mentioned the furlough program in Massachusetts, but he did not bring up Horton whatsoever in the debate. This is a well known fact and a simple archive of the debate can prove it.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


What's the "evidence" that the Bush campaign had any involvement in the Revolving Door ad? To say that the Bush campaign "claimed" not to have produced it, is like saying (to take an example from the same campaign) that Dukakis "claimed" that Donna Brazile was acting on her own when she accused Bush of being an adulterer. Brazile said she was, Dukakis said she was, and that's accepted as being the way it was. Seems to be much the same with Revolving Door. Ellsworth 18:59, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The rules for independent expenditures are very strict -- it's not just a matter of whether the Bush campaign produced the ad directly, but whether they had any kind of involvement ("cooperation or coordination" is the official phrase, I think) in its creation, production, or airing. The evidence is that Ailes openly bragged that they would use Horton in TV ads, McCarthy's close relationship with Ailes, the suspicious timing with "Revolving Doors", and the fact that an employee of Ailes's firm worked on both ads. RadicalSubversiv E 19:13, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think the re-write you did is a fair assessment. Thanks. Ellsworth 19:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
NB the discussion above should reference the "Weekend Passes" ad, as the one produced by the independent group. "Revolving Door" was produced by the Bush campaign. The article has it right. Ellsworth 21:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's work on this

"Sordid" is almost invariably rife with POV; it's also non-NPOV to find it "surprising" that Atwater claimed a deathbed conversion to "Born-again Christianity". But I am not the arbriter of non-NPOV and won't appoint myself such in this case, unless no one steps up, I suppose.

Rlquall 17:06, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] huh?

"Attempting to counter-attack, Dukakis's campaign ran a similar ad about a Hispanic murderer named Angel Medrano who murdered a pregnant mother of two while on furlough from federal prison. Dukakis's ad stated Medrano's name and showed his photograph."

Am I missing something? How could this help Dukakis? --Tothebarricades 09:29, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it didn't help Dukakis that much -- but presumably it was motivated by the idea that if Dukakis could be held answerable for Massachusetts prison furloughs, then Bush was similarly responsible for federal prison furloughs. Determining whose political campaign was the more hypocritical is left as an exercise for the reader. 67.169.116.21 09:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Fournier

Willie Horton is a household name but who the hell is Joseph Fournier? Does anyone else but me care?

I would like to know more about this young man. I do know a few things about him that I remember from a Reader's Digest that I have not been able to verify on the net. The net is so new that much of the info about this case is not available on line. But I do remember a few things like:

There was a brave lady from the Boston Globe(was that it?) that exposed this case that everyone else wanted to sweep under the carpet. What was her name? She and Mr. Fournier's sister helped expose this policy to the national public. What was her name?

The way in which Horton killed young Mr. Fournier needs to be listed. I recall he was shoved the boy into a barrel with his feet up to his chin. It was cruel. He bleed to death and no doubt suffered much pain and fear. But all I ever hear about this case is how unfair it all was -- to Horton.

Fournier was poor, white and powerless so he had the 3 strikes to turn him into a non-entity for "progressives".John celona 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

-- mccommas

Dukaki has the idea of "rehabilitated prisoners" which branched from the "restorative justice" movement which started as early back as the 60's. This is one of Dukaki's statements during an interview by CNN's Berrie Shaw:
(When asked if Dukaki would change his mind about the death penality if his wife was raped and
murdered.) Dukaki said, "No, I don't, Bernard. And I think you know that I've opposed the death
penalty all of my life. I don't see any evidence that it's a deterrent, and I think there are
better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. We've done so in my own state. And
it's one of the reasons why we have the biggest drop in crime of an industrial state..."
Unfortunately this was never successful in Dukaki's case. He and his allies wanted to shovel Horton's case under the rock. Joey Fournier's sister then formed an organization called "Citizens Against and Unsafe Society. Then when it was surfaced (mostly by Joey Fournier's sister, who's name I can't remember), they turned the Horton case into a "racist" situation, saying that everything about the Horton case was made just because he was black. On one occasion, Jamieson claims that it was Bush (Sr's.) administration's dirty trick to change William Horton's name to Willie (like an act of racism). In July 1988 Reader's Digest Jamieson refers to Willie Horton as William J. Horton., Jr, saying that it's his real name (though she, Jamieson, never states how she found that out [did she personally walk down the cell blocks and ask his cell block buddies?]). The fact that the word "Willie" was used instead of William was supposed to be the Republicans making a cruel, racist slur. Of course, this is completely false, as during an interview with liberal columnist Jimmy Breslin the day of Bush's inauguration, Horton referred to himself in the third person as "Willie Horton."
Instead of being treated as a criminal who murdered and mutilated a 17 year old boy (Joey Fournier), stabbed Cliff Barnes repeatedly and raped and stabbed his wife twice, the entire case turned Willie Horton into a saint before the public as it tried to pit Republicans as racist for wishing to apply fair justice in the case of Willie. As Paul Harvey says, "And now you know the rest of the story."--NWalterstorf 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


What is the significance of calling him "Willie"? (Picture, if you will, not everyone being entirely au fait with the racial political discourse obtaining in those United States. Thank you kindly.)

194.46.166.145 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore?

Why does half this article involve Al Gore? It seems to me that a few commentators at the time the ads were run tried to shift the issue onto Al's shoulders, saying that the Democrats brought it on themselves. So why does an article on the entire Willie Horton series of events read like an indictment of Al Gore, of all people? What place do quotes from Novak and Kristol criticizing Al Gore ten years after the fact have in an article that should deal with the ads, their creators, their funding, and their effect?

I'm pulling the nonsense quotations out of the article now. Even if they do pertain (and they don't), they're poorly formatted and they don't belong in the middle of the body. --electric counterpoint 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to edit down the "Al Gore" part of the interview quite a bit. I know Wikipedia subscribes to the NPOV standard, but NPOV is not the same as "including information known to be false". There is no evidence--no film, no audio, no news article, nothing--to indicate that Al Gore mentioned Horton during the 1988 primary campaign. It's probably true that "some believe" Gore did, but "some believe" the Earth to be flat. The several paragraphs about Gore, who never mentioned Horton, distract from the actual Horton story. Vidor 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a reason the Clinton/Gore team won in 1992. They did not try to justify and/or rationalize convicted murderers and rapists. As far as Al Gore is concerned, he did not mention Willie Horton by name, but he did criticize the furlough program. SesameRoad 18:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning behind the furlough

It would be helpful, if someone could explain the reasoning behind letting life-without-parole convicts be eligible for a furlough. What arguments did D. use when he vetoed the the bill eliminating this? 213.243.182.3 20:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Life without parole convicts were allowed in the furlough program because of a badly written law. At first, Massachusetts tried to bar such convicts from the program, but a lawsuit was filed and they were ordered to make the program open to all inmates, even lifers. Why Dukakis vetoed a bill to close this loophole, I have no idea. Jsc1973 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Willie Horton: The Person

It seems odd to me that most of this article is about the Dukakis political campaign, when it is supposed to be an article about a person. Maybe we should put in some more stuff about Willie Horton? Kinghy 06:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Horton the person isn't important or worthy of an article. Horton as political smear tactic in 1988 is. Vidor 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Making it known that Massachusetts let a murderer free from prison who then raped and murdered another young woman isn't a smear tactic; it's a fact. Governor Dukakis could care less about that lady; the only thing he cared about was his precious reputation. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 01:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless if it has a factual basis, its still negative campaigning (sometimes referred to as a smear tactic). Political campaigns are not held accountable for lying in adverstisements, there's no truth-in-advertising law that applies. And its pointless to sue (see New York Times Co. v. Sullivan). So it is NEVER smart to accept political ads as "fact". All pols "care about their precious reputation", and partisanship is ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.175.80 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Horton

You know...some people might actually want to read about the man himself and not him as political weaponry. Wikipedia is getting really lame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.135.111 (talk • contribs)

Well, he's 6'1, heavier-set these days, has soulful brown eyes, is a bit of a daydreamer, and his hobbies include making animal figurines out of chewed up playing cards, and murdering people. 68.0.119.181 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Horton is not notable as a person, only as the iconic example of a political tactic. That's just the way it is. Apart from baseball fans, no one uses the name "Willie Horton" today to mean anything but a particular type of political smear campaign. And yes, the Horton affair of 1988 was a political smear campaign. Horton's crimes are fact, but his connection to Dukakis (the political candidate who was the target of the smear attempt) is somewhere between distant and nonexistent. 75.71.67.2 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 campaign

I just added a "dubious" tag to the assertion that Willie Horton was referenced more times during the 1992 campaign than during the 1988 campaign. This has already been "fact" tagged for half a year. If sourcing is not forthcoming in the next week or so it should simply be removed from the article. Cgingold (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intention of the sentence is that Willie Horton was additionally referenced in 1992. I've cleaned the sentence to make it look less like what you seem to get from it. I can't find a citation at the moment but if anyone can, I'd appreciate it --Utopianfiat (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Politics?

I see that this article is considered part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime. These categorizations seem somewhat beside the point. In a vague sort of way, of course, this article is a biography -- and of course Willie Horton is a criminal -- but the notable aspect is not the biography as such but the use of this man as an icon in political discourse.

Is the article better categorized, perhaps, within Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or still better, Wikipedia:WikiProject Propaganda if such a thing were to exist? 75.71.67.2 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)