Talk:Death of Oury Jalloh

POV

This article seems particularly POV; a quick read should illustrate that. For example, "In spite of the fact that the State Prosecutor of Dessau has made formal accusations of negligent homicide and bodily harm with fatal consequences, new excuses are nevertheless found to close the case—to the point of absurdity."

Seems to me that there are lots of weasel words and phrases designed to provoke sympathy in the reader, and while it may be warranted, Wikipedia is not the appropriate platform. --Chris (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is that article not shortened?

most of the stuff, except the first paragraph is intendend to force the readers in a certain way of thinking -- why is an article so biased allowed to stay fully if disputed? it would be far more appropriate if it was shortened to contain nothing but the facts, ie the first paragraph. atm the authors of this article are able to propagate their suspicions without any way to correct those! btw: the article does not even contain the informations of the german article on the topic (which doublessly is ab bit biased) but contains far more informations instead of pure allegations.

Problems don't get fixed so long as nobody willing to fix them is aware of them. You could have shortened the article yourself, providing an explanation in the edit summary to make sure it is not mistaken for vandalism. Now I am aware of this article. I have started to improve it, and hope I can turn it into a good article. Hans Adler 09:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rename to Death of Oury Jalloh

Oury Jalloh is notable only for his death. This situation is similar to that of WP:BLP1E, except that he is dead. If we leave the article at the current title, we can never do the supposed topic justice since we simply don't have any useful reliable sources about any details of his life other than its end. As in all other similar situations, such as the featured article Death of Ian Tomlinson, the article should be renamed to make the scope implicit. This is also necessary so that we can describe the court cases, an important aspect, in detail.

I do not expect any opposition, and in fact I moved the article. However, an editor has moved it back, apparently (the editor has not replied to my request for clarification yet) based on some idea that articles may never be renamed while subject to an AfD, even when the AfD is clearly baseless and the move appears to be uncontroversial. Once the AfD is over, I intend to move the article again. If anyone opposes this, please say so now and I will start the more formal WP:RM process. Hans Adler 14:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm against renaming this article, most especially while the Afd is still in full swing. Amsaim (talk) 07:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess this must now go through WP:RM. I will humour you and wait for the end of the AfD. In the AfD one commenter proposed renaming the article, I commented without explicitly agreeing – simply implementing it instead –, and another short comment did not touch the issue. I really don't see how you can construct a lack of consensus to move from this unless you yourself have a valid reason for opposing and are willing to divulge it. In my experience renaming an article during an AfD is normally completely uncontroversial unless it's an attempt to change the outcome by gaming, and I am not aware of any guideline against doing it. Hans Adler 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per proposal. Orlady (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Oury Jalloh → Death of Oury Jalloh — This article is not about Oury Jalloh as a person. It is about the extremely suspicious circumstances of his death, and about the consequences. Reliable sources tried to research his life, as it is somewhat relevant to the case, but did not find much. There simply isn't enough material for a reasonable biography article. The situation is analogous to WP:BLP1E. This move to a title analogous to that of the featured article Death of Ian Tomlinson seemed like a no-brainer to me. An editor reverted, claiming that a move during AfD was automatically improper, but has so far not given any reason against the move. Hans Adler 11:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I can understand why someone didn't want it moved during the AfD, as there have been issues before with moves during AfDs (can't recall one off the top of my head, though). Anyway, I agree completely with the nom. Subject is only notable for his death, not for anything else that happened in his life, which is a clear case of WP:BIO1E. The death is notable and should be covered, Jalloh's life itself is not. Jenks24 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - the Requested move template stipulates that editors should "remember to base arguments on article title policy", which is what I would like to do here. The article title policy has a subsection on Considering title changes, which informs us that "...the use of a name in the title of one article...does not... require that all related articles use the same name in their titles...". Furthermore, the policy states that "...if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed...". Based upon this policy the article title should remain as it is. Citing the Death of Ian Tomlinson as an argument why the Oury Jalloh article should likewise be renamed, appears to be an "other stuff exists" argument, and is thusly not really convincing. The Oury Jalloh article has been stable since its creation on 23 March 2006, and therefore according to WP:TITLECHANGES the article title should not be changed. There actually are reliable sources which write about the life of Oury Jalloh, his background, his life in Germany, his child that he had with a German woman, his brother, his family in Sierra Leone etc. The majority of these reliable sources are in the German language. Lastly consider this: the Federal Court of Justice of Germany has ordered the retrial of the case, and the family of Oury Jalloh has arrived in Germany, and so as this case is an on-going current event, it can very well happen that more details of Oury Jalloh's life will emerge in reliable sources as the trial continues. This article therefore should not be hastily renamed. Amsaim (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support, it's the death that's notable; there's nothing to suggest that anything else about his life (apart from very brief background information) is enecyclopedic.--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds of WP:precision. There's no need to be any more specific in the article title than the person's name. Andrewa (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • But the point is that in this case, the person is not the subject of the article; his death is.--Kotniski (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The article is not about Oury Jalloh but his death. Oury Jalloh was not notable in life and is only now notable because of his death. —  AjaxSmack  17:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:BLP1E/WP:VICTIM (and WP:precision). —  AjaxSmack  17:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Just to be clear: Of course WP:BLP1E does not technically apply. But while it's less critical to follow it for dead people, its advice is still sound. (We are not going to rename/restructure articles after someone's death just because that makes them no longer fall under BLP.) WP:VICTIM does apply precisely to this situation and says that we apply WP:BLP1E analogously for dead people.
• WP:PRECISION doesn't seem to appy either way. It's quite obvious that it speaks only about the cases when due to a clash we have to change the title that we would otherwise have chosen. This is very clear from the examples. The section title "precision and disambiguation" doesn't mean that the section treats to basically unrelated topics together. It treats the topic of precision inside the context of disambiguation. Both titles agree more or less with the general advice of WP:TITLE. The current title is slightly shorter, and the proposed new title gives a better idea of what it's about (don't expect to find much about Oury Jalloh's childhood, his education, etc., as it's mostly not noteworthy). It's a trade-off, and one of the type for which we generally choose the more precise title. Hans Adler 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of Garn, 2016

The section about a supposed "parallel" to the Yangjie Li case was recently deleted by another editor as OR.
So I threw out this unneeded source but only gave "really executed the removal decribed in my last (non-)edit " as an edit summary, when there is no 'last edit' to see. (Please don't ask.) Mentioned here for completeness' sake. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Establishing the facts about the 2008 verdict: Acquittals only

I have just thrown out Bartsch, 2008 (taz) as a source, because his report about the first verdict from December 8, 2008 is quite misleading. His title is "Acquittal and fine for policemen", when in fact the fine part was in the prosecutors's speech only, not in the final verdict. Bartsch only mentions the demand, not the final verdict for Andreas S., which was acquittal, here. That's sloppy journalism, in my opinion. (Personally, I'm a bit disappointed. I've always been a bit of a taz fan.) The other sources already cited only have "acquittal" and no mention of a fine, this had me a bit confused. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of section "Official investigations and prosecutions"

I'm working to translate and fill the chronological gaps (2012 - 2020) in this section. Please help me with my current draft for this. I'm no native speaker, so a bit of proof-reading would be a big help already. Thanks. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Autopsies and criminal / fire expertises

I'm still a bit unsure about this.
From what I have read so far, it appear there have been (at least) the following:

Autopsies
• the regular autopsy ordered by the disctrict attorney, 2005
• another independent autopsy, commissioned by Jalloh's family and supporters, before the beginning of the first trial (2007-2008). It additionally discovered a broken nasal bone.
• the autopsy by Dr. Boris Bodelle and Goethe University Frankfurt, forming the basis of the 2018 law suit.

Expertises
• the August 2016 fire expertise by Kurt Zollinger (CH)

Please help me sort this out and find missing dates, sources and results. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bundesverfassungsgericht, Verfahren 2 BvR 378/20, Oury Jalloh

Zunächst muss ich mich vielmals entschuldigen, mein Englisch ist leider derart lausig, dass ich gar nicht erst einen Versuch wagen möchte. Zudem muss sich derjenige, der sich meines Einwurfs annimmt, ohnehin intensiv mit deutscher Juristensprache auseinandersetzen, denn ohne ein Verständnis meines Aufsatzes Die Zeitenwende im Klageerzwingungsverfahren und meiner aktuellen Kommentierungen auf beck-blog ist eine Bearbeitung des Artikels Oury Jalloh überhaupt nicht möglich.

Ich denke, dass es sich bei dem Fall Oury Jalloh um einen der größten Justizskandale der bundesdeutschen Nachkriegsgeschichte handelt: Zwei deutsche Polizisten bringen einen Schwarzen um, und der Fall wird noch nicht einmal gerichtlich untersucht, es wird noch nicht einmal der Versuch unternommen, den beiden beschuldigten Polizisten den Mordvorwurf nachzuweisen. An dieser Stelle kommt mein Aufsatz Die Zeitenwende im Klageerzwingungsverfahren ins Spiel: Ich will erreichen, dass die Hinterbliebenen eines Mordopfers eine faire Chance erhalten, das Vertuschen und Verschleiern, das staatliche Behörden betreiben, zu durchbrechen. Denn in Deutschland besteht für die Hinterbliebenen von Mordopfern durchaus die Möglichkeit, bei Gericht einen Antrag zu stellen, dass das Gericht die Strafverfolgungsbehörde, die Staatsanwaltschaft, dazu anhält, Mordanklage zu erheben. Dieses Verfahren steht aber praktisch nur auf dem Papier, in der forensischen Realität haben die Hinterbliebenen von Mordopfern nicht wirklich eine Aussicht, mit ihrem Klagebegehren Erfolg zu haben.

Aktuell ist das Verfahren beim Bundesverfassungsgericht unter dem Aktenzeichen 2 BvR 378/20 anhängig. Gelingt es, das BVerfG davon zu überzeugen, dass die Hinterbliebenen von Mordopfern eine realistische Chance erhalten müssen, eine strafrechtliche Anklage zu erzwingen, ist auch im Fall Oury Jalloh der Weg zur Aufklärung der Mordvorwürfe gegen die beiden beschuldigten Polizisten geebnet.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Über ein neues Gutachten, das zum wiederholten Male unter Beweis stellt, dass den beiden beschuldigten Polizeibeamten der Mord an Oury Jalloh nachweisbar ist, berichtet die taz in einem aktuellen Artikel.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Helmut Hoppenstedt is infinit banned in the German Wikipedia for all his different User-Names since 2019, cf. [1]. --95.130.162.46 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

<- (Personal attack removed) --Johannnes89 (talk) -> Aber zurück zur Sache: Mittlerweile hat die Initiative zur Aufklärung des Mordes an Oury Jalloh Strafanzeige wegen Strafvereitelung im Amt gem. § 258a StGB erstattet. Ich gehe davon aus, dass die deutschen Behörden ihre Politik der Vertuschung und Verschleierung fortsetzen werden. Deswegen halte ich es für ausgeschlossen, dass die deutschen Behörden die strafrechtlichen Vorwürfe in irgendeiner Weise aufklären werden.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)