Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Jay Abatan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Flibirigit (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Killing of Jay Abatan

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - Mujinga my suggestion is to reword slightly: ALT1: ... that after Jay Abatan was unlawfully killed in 1999, his family continued to campaign for justice?
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nice work! Approved, pending feedback on the tweaked hook. paul2520 💬 18:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, I like ALT1 (with same sources) but I prefer to keep ALT0 in the running also, since it emphasises that the campaign is ongoing (there was a vigil this year in January). On my understanding this now needs a second reviewer since the original reviewer has proposed a new alt. Mujinga (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mujinga (I, like, triple-checked this one) and Paul2520: Could the hook be rephrased? I'm uncomfortable with the connotation of "pursuing justice", since the killers haven't been convicted. It implies that we think they should be (and don't get me wrong, they should be, but...) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
i get that interpretation a bit on ALT1 but not really on ALT0 which I think follows the source more clearly in saying the family are still campaigning, not necessarily for the killers to be convicted (whoever they were), but more for clarity on what happened that night and the later police corruption Mujinga (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
this seems to have stalled so asking for a second reviewer to give an opinion, thanks Mujinga (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mujinga: per MOS:WTW I edited the article. I believe we need to avoid colloquial language like the word "row" (in the lead) which is an informal British word for an argument (I took it out). The article has the correct inline citations (I moved them to their own section) and earwigs does not alert to any copyright issues. The QPQ is done. The hang up here is the hook, which is not interesting. Perhaps a hook with something about investigations by three different police departments. Or a hook about the fact that the family has been pushing for justice over more than two decades. I will think on this and in the meantime you can see if you can get a more interesting hook. As it is ALT0 uses the word "continue" when it should be "continues". Bruxton (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the reaction, two other reviewers found the proposed hook interesting so I see no reason to change it if you don't personally like it - feel free to propose another hook of course. For ALT0, "continue" works fine in British English. It's good you pointed out "row" seems colloquial to you, but removing cited information and changing the reference system are changes that definitely should be proposed first. Also your edits have introduced proseline and left the article in need of a copyedit; it would not be appropriate to have the article on the mainpage like this so I'll have to fix that now. Mujinga (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
The article has been returned to previous form, so I believe it is in need of a copyedit. Several sections of the article are difficult to comprehend, perhaps because of the overuse of pronouns. The hook is not interesting to me, and two previous editors appear to have rejected it. @Paul2520: rewrote the hook (ALT1) and you said you did not prefer it, and then @Theleekycauldron: stopped by to say she was uncomfortable with a word in a hook (which I cannot see here). I do not see that either editor approved the hook. Regarding changing the "reference system", I find it overly difficult to edit an article when it has 24 lines of citations mixed in with the text. I did not see it as changing the reference system to move the references under the reference heading. Apologies for taking that liberty. Regarding removing cited material; I removed this line about the decedent's brother, "Michael Abatan said that he no longer trusted the police." I did not think it had any encyclopedic value. After three separate police investigations and a public apology from the Sussex Police Department – I do not trust them either. I won’t hold up the nomination, someone else can give it a go. I believe it is in need of a thorough copyedit and a new hook for the reasons outlined above. I apologize that my own copyedit of the article was imperfect and unwelcome. Bruxton (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton we've had decent interactions previously so I was a bit surprised with your previous comment. Thanks for apologising and not doubling down as people tend to do on wikipedia. Sorry if I was snappy, it's annoying for me if someone does a copyedit and introduces new errors. I did actually incorporate some of your changes by the way, such as the section breaks, so thanks for improving the article! I don't think it needs a copy edit now but of course your view on that might vary from mine. In any case, I nominated this article in February and there's been no comments for another week so this just seems like it's not going anywhere - shame it won't see the mainpage, but I'd rather use the QPQ on another nom. Mujinga (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Mujinga (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mujinga: unfortunately, QPQs are per nomination; if the nomination has undergone significant review/effort, my understanding is that the QPQ can't be reused. That said, let me take a crack at copyediting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton: copyediting complete; I don't think the prose was egregious, but this didn't hurt. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will need some clarification from the nom; I don't have time to go through the sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
For a more neutral hook, I propose ALT2: ... that the 1999 killing of Jay Abatan has not resulted in any arrests? hope it's accurate, at least... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
striking, it's inaccurate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of inaccurate information, how is the current treatment considered WP:NPOV? It's categorized as, linked to, and linked from "Unsolved murders" when (a) it wasn't a murder under British law, whether it is one more informally is debatable but this was supposedly a fistfight that ended with a fatal fall, the page is at "Killing of..." rather than "Murder of..." for these exact reasons, (b) the perpetrators are all known even if left unlisted, and (c) they have to be unlisted because the ones charged were acquitted of any criminal guilt by a jury? It's fine to do an even better job of clearly explaining why the investigation and trial were botched, it'd be fine with sources decrying it as a miscarriage of justice, but it's definitionally not an "unsolved murder" by the meaning of either word. Note also that Nicole Brown's page (eg) uses the neutral section #Death. #Killing is justified by the later coroner's report but is still a POVy look.

Additionally, I know racial issues are somewhat less charged in the UK but that's only by comparison with the dumpster fire in the US. It's still highly POVy to throw around racial charges while not mentioning race or the development of the assault in the actual #Killing section, particularly if the only sourced information is "everyone was mixed race" followed by accusations of racism without any evidence that they were warranted. I'm assuming that the Sussex Police didn't admit the killing was racially motivated on no evidence whatsoever: it needs to be presented. I'm assuming the coroner didn't conclude the assault was unprovoked on no evidence whatsoever: it needs to be presented. Anything less fact based is just feeding into further needless racial animosity.

Essential missing pieces of information that really should be included: (1) If only 2 people were arrested for the killing but more were involved, why weren't the others brought up on charges then or after the finding of unlawful killing? Are they the only 2 of 49 people whose identities are still unknown (is that why this is an "unsolved" murder? it's completely unclear from the article) or was there some other reason? Is there any level at which the police misconduct involved not charging the others? (2) Once the finding of unlawful killing was returned, why wasn't anyone charged? If it was because of double jeopardy, say so. If it was because of a statue of limitations (but murder doesn't have one), say so. Obviously one known attacker had already committed suicide (it would be good but not necessary to include any information that this case was related since the implication is so strong that it is). Had the other died of natural causes or is there some other reason he's not back in the dock? (3) Given the current mistreatment of the racial charges, I agree that the 2 suspects shouldn't currently be named. Once the article actually is in compliance with NPOV, they should be named. Their involvement, arrest, and trial are a matter of public record. If they were found innocent for any reason other than gross racial bias by the police or jury, the article shouldn't railroad them but leave their names 2 google searches away. It should clearly present the other side, to the point that naming them would be neither illegal nor against policy. It's not like OJ Simpson's name is omitted from discussions of Nicole Brown's murder just because he was eventually acquitted.

Also, the legal treatment of the case is highly confused, putting part of it with one set of charges under the #Killing subsection and further developments including a change of charges in #Aftermath. Findings of police misconduct are handled across three paragraphs mixed in with other developments instead of clearly presented to explain both sides' assessment of their importance and the possibility they affected the case. Police were "found guilty of misconduct" without any discussion of what the misconduct was or its importance to the case. The only real #Aftermath/Legacy is the BLM march. Everything else is part of the investigation and legal response to the killing.

Finally, ALT0 and ALT1 may be supported by their sources but neither is mentioned or sourced within the article itself. The family's involvement is described as ending in 2003, which needs to be fixed before either one goes forward.

@Mujinga: Thank you for having tried to share and make sense of what is obviously a very bungled case and likely miscarriage of justice. Apologies if any of the above issues were the result of Bruxton or others' editing. (There was nothing wrong with "row". A fistfight over a taxi is definitionally one and it doesn't fall under the policy mentioned, which is for things like unsourced cult when you're talking about beliefs or, here, unsolved murder or racially motivated without any supporting details showing those to be the case. "Row" is more common in the UK but that doesn't make it "colloquial" or "unencyclopaedic" and it isn't.) — LlywelynII 17:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Llywelyn thanks for the comments, I'm not sure why this is still open but if you want to take it on and/or edit the article then go ahead. I've already said I don't want to go on with this and disengaged, it's just frustrating as a content creator to have DYKs rolling for months and watch the article decline in quality. I'd unwatched this page and the article already, on a quick look it's indeed a bit of a mess now, there's incorrect information in the lead and I've removed the obvious breach of WP:BLPNAME Mujinga (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Killing_of_Jay_Abatan&oldid=1087631834"