Talk:Willie Horton

Joseph Fournier

How about a pic of Joe? I think one should be on this page. I also think he should have his own entry. He was a person you know.--69.37.32.129 (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You could create a short Wikipedia page just for him.Historian932 (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Joe Fournier was my cousin! He was named after my dad. I remember how truly devastated my father was after his tragic unnecessary death! Willie Horton that bastard killed my cousin for a very petty about of money I believe it was less than 200.00 and Joe gave him the money with no questions he fully cooperated. Willie Horton WANTED to kill Joe because he was white. He's got a lot of nerve telling anyone else they are racial against him. He has no right to ever walk the streets again. He's a RAPIST and a brutal KILLERI have pics of Joe. He was only 18 when he was murdered for no damn reason. Never forget what Willie did. He raped a woman in Wheaton and committed another murder. Furlough is a bad idea white or black murders do not belong in furlough! It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with my cousin who was stabbed to death and stuffed in a trash can because Willie hated white people!! Joefcousin (talk) 03:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Joe was my cousin! He was named after my dad. I remember how devastated my dad was over his death! Joe was his favorite nephew. Our family is still crushed over his savage unnecessary brutal death! Joe gave Willie the money with no questions asked he fully cooperated. He was an 18 year old kid! He was working at that gas station at night and going to school during the day he did it to help his family financially

He took Joe from us for evil reasons. He has a lot of nerve saying he's discriminated against when he murdered my cousin for less than 200 bucks because he was white! He did it because he wanted to. I have many words for that creep! Never forget he got put on furlough and raped a woman and committed a second murder. He's a brutal murderer that deserves to never see the light of day. Rest In Peace Joe Fournier. I tell you our family never got over this tragedy and we never will. I remember reading it in the Readers Digest when it happened. Willie Horton stabbed Joe 17 times in the chest and crushed his knees to his head and shoved him in a dumpster and left him there to bleed to death! I loved my cousin people! Do you really want a person like Willie Horton on the streets again? I sure do not!

He is a RAPIST and a KILLER! White or Back or whatever it makes no difference the facts are the facts and he's an ugly person putting it nicely. Absolutely EVIL. I wish MA had the death penalty. He deserves it! Joefcousin (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have a picture of Joe’s Mom my Aunt Ree holding his picture in her hands. If you tell me how to post it here I will do so. Joefcousin (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried pasting the picture here but it won't go so if you'd like to see Joe and my Aunt Ree Google Joe Fournier 30th Anniversary Family Remembers. You will see that picture there. Joefcousin (talk) 04:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

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

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)

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)

• • • Perhaps the article should be expanded to illustrate how Michael Dukasis is a stubborn liberal who clings to his preconceived notions without regard to the effect that they might have on others, including members of his own family. I recall, during one of the presidential debates, someone asked him to suppose that his wife, Kitty Dukakis, had been raped and murdered, and whether, under such circumstances, he would favor the death penalty. His answer was, to the effect, no, of course not. Right after that, Kitty Dukakis was hospitalized for a nervous breakdown. Who could blame her? John Paul Parks (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • He did not murder the woman he raped. It doesn't make him any less of a scumbag, but it might help if you got the details straight, no? C'est Sie Bon 01:33, 03 Jun 2016 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.0.66.214 (talk)

• • • You should be aware that, for many years, in several states, rape was a capital offense. The Supreme Court of the United States struck such a statute down as unconstitutional in Coker v. Georgia. The opinion of Lewis Powell, to the effect that women do not suffer any long-term injury from rape, is absolutely appalling. John Paul Parks (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2009 (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)

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)

Horton's crimes are fact, but his connection to Dukakis...is somewhere between distant and nonexistent - you mean other than as a demonstration of the results of wrong-minded policy that Dukakis supported?TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

No recorded statement?

Deleted:

There has been no recorded statement from him since his incarceration.

If this means (as I think) that he has not spoken publicly i.e. to the media since the 2nd arrest/conviction it is definitely not true. He talked to reporters during the 1988 campaign and he did a long interview with The Nation sometime in the 90s. I'll check for the Nation article when I get the chance but Nations online archives are pay-access. Ellsworth (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the citation for the Nation article: Elliot, Jeffrey M.. "The 'Willie' Horton nobody knows. (William Horton, Jr.)(interview) (Cover Story)." August 23, 1993. The Nation.

Here's a pay link to the full article:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-13235575.html

h/t User:Anomalocaris. Ellsworth (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Recently removed material, preserved here

Hi. I recently removed a handful of material that sat tagged as "without verifiability" since 2008/2009. This is per WP:V, and particularly WP:ALIVE. The claims made are interesting, so I leave them here in hopes that someone finds suitable verifiability for them so they can be put back into the article. Regards. --Ds13 (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dukakis continued to argue that the program was 99 percent effective; yet, as the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune pointed out, no state outside of Massachusetts, nor any federal program, would grant a furlough to a prisoner serving life without parole.
• In April 1988, Lee Atwater asked aide Jim Pinkerton for negative research to defeat Dukakis.
• After giving the focus group the material Pinkerton provided on the index card, most of the voters switched from favoring Dukakis to favoring Bush.
• The following week at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Bush began to press the argument against Dukakis by declaring that Dukakis had let Horton loose to 'terrorize innocent people' and continued support of the furlough program until the Massachusetts legislature changed the law.
• Bush again mentioned Horton at the National Sheriffs Association in Louisville, Kentucky and declared himself in favor of 'life without parole' for convicted murderers.
• The commercial was filmed at an actual state prison in Draper, Utah, but the individuals depicted – thirty in all, were paid actors.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Willie Horton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/95/2/pulitzers.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Move Request

I think a strong case can be made that this article should be moved to William Horton. We literally have quote from the man in this article saying he did not go by Willie and, in fact, resented the name. "Willie Horton" may be the name he was most commonly known by, but I cannot think of another living person whose article title is a name that person never personally went by (and was contrived in order to attack that person). The ad is the "Willie Horton ad," but the person is William Horton. --216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Identifying his race

One of the notable characteristics of the ad campaign, now that it has passed into history and others have a broad perspective to analyze it, is that Horton is black. Our article states, with secondary cite, "It is believed that the racial overtone of the ad wound up being a key aspect of the way the ad was remembered and later studied." Horton himself is also quoted as saying the ad plays or racial stereotypes about him. Multiple other details in the article discuss the racial aspect despite some denials at the time that there was racial intent. Given the relevance of race to the ad, and that Horton is the person whose race is at issue, his race is a notable characteristic of him and a relevant major detail in light of our article content. Therefore, per WP:LEDE and WP:RS, I think we should mention this detail. Other bio articles might not mention race (or at least not so early/prominently) but again, other people might not have race as a relevant or defining characteristic in relation to notability. Other editors disagree, stating merely that we should not mention it in the lede. Please discuss if you have an actual basis in content guideline or policy to exclude it. DMacks (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead should cover the infamous dog-whistle ad

The lasting legacy of Willie Horton is the "Willie Horton ad", an ad by supporters of GHW Bush, which is widely connected to concept of "dog-whistle politics". Since the 1988, pretty much every RS mention of Horton has been in the context of this ad and the singular focus has been on its relationship to race, crime and dog-whistle politics. And there's no shortage of RS coverage since 1988: I was actually surprised by how often and how regularly this issue was raised in NYT, WAPO and other major newspapers in the last 30 years. It goes without saying that it's been widely covered in the academic literature. By omitting this from the lead, we are doing our readers an enormous disservice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The statement you had in the lead was inaccurate. It was not a "Bush" ad. And secondly, it's already in the main body. I might could get behind having it in the lead.....but it had to be properly stated.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Why did you not then properly state it instead of wasting everyone's time and somehow again edit in a dubious manner on a race-related topic? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one who wants in in. You still don't get how things work here do you?Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Can I then restore the content to the lead with the clarification that the ad was by a pro-Bush PAC? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd call it what it's called in the "Fall campaign" section.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Primary subject?

Can we discuss whether this is the prime topic for "Willie Horton"? Perhaps it's just that I recognized politics as a theatre of the absurd long ago, but isn't this a primarily US topic? And almost anyone in the US would associate "Willie Horton" with the Detroit Tigers power hitter rather than as a political tactic in an election. I came here because "Willie Horton" was mentioned in a thread on racism topics at ANI and couldn't I figure what the relationship between a power hitter and racism was. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that somehow this Willie was the short blip on the radar from a failed election campaign. How does someone in the news for the 10-12 weeks a presidential election campaign USED to last, and only as an example, be more important than a baseball player that played well for near 20 years? Generally we make it way too easy for a sports figure to have a bio....but Horton wasn't a flash in the pan. He was a solid player for many years on a pennant winning team in a major market. However, the Horton here is a nobody (actually less than that), and this shouldn't be a biography at all...it should be merged into an article on the Dukakis campaign. He doesn't qualify for a bio, and certainly isn't the primary topic for this title. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This specific part of the campaign is independently notable (and remains discussed even over the decades since), as can be seen by the mile of citatations, and there is also enough content here (IMO) for a stand-alone article. One good question is whether the person is the notable topic here (or notable himself at all), vs only the ad campaign and other poster-childing of him. Should we reframe it as the latter due to BLP1E? DMacks (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Let's omit speculation

One sentence of the introduction reads as follows:

"The re-naming has been speculated to be the product of racist stereotyping."

Racism is a terrible scourge.

Therefore it is a terrible idea to include speculation about what may or may not have been racist 34 years ago.

Note that this speculation is based on the use of the inaccurate name "Willie" instead of the correct name, "William".

That is a colossally meager basis for asserting racism. There is not even anything pejorative about the name "Willie".

By pointing out every possible case of potential racism, such claims seriously detract from the no-questions-about-it-most-definitely racism by blurring the lines between racism and maybe? or maybe not? racism.

Sorry, this is nonsense. The campaign was unambiguously recognised as racist at the time. the Bush campaign disavowed it for that reason. You are introducing a modern, 2020s "racism-denialist" perspective that is out of sync with the perspective of the times. 1.145.157.5 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)