This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Murders of Jan Pawel and Quiana Jenkins Pietrzak appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,958 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
What amazes me is near-complete silence of mainstream mass-media about this murder. While looking for sources, I have noticed that major media outlets, such as The New York Times, BBC or CNN, did not write a word about it. One can only wonder why. Tymek ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, CNN did cover the story when the four assailants were arrested around November 4, 2008. http://m.cnn.com/cHTML/cnn/ne/crime/news/193302;jsessionid=5E306470430D1190DA1CE328A086FF97.live7i So did ABC News, as well as various newspapers in the Riverside, California and San Diego region. The New York Daily News did several articles on the subject, too. So did the London Telegraph. There is a facebook page that posts the links to several news articles on this story. You can view it here http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32478219373 15.251.169.69 ( talk) 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has just been placed on the article. What is disputed here? Tymek ( talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is he really notable? IIRC, if a person is only notable as a victim, that person is not always notable. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The lead-in currently says "he was murdered along with his African-American wife." The only reason her race is relevant, as far as I can tell, is that some (such as his mother) believe the murders were racially motivated, and if that is the case I think it would be more appropriate to disclose her race in the Aftermath section, right before the sentence stating that his mother thinks the murders were racially motivated. I would have done it myself, but I wasn't sure which source to cite along with it. — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV requires articles to represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". In my opinion, this article overwhelmingly presents the point of view that the killings were racially motivated. Except for the lead paragraph's sentence "...the Riverside County authorities maintain the motivation was robbery and the pending murder with special circumstances charges and rape charges do not include an assertion that the crime was racially motivated", the article presents no more evidence to support the view that the crime had no racial motivation while presenting many instances of the opposing view, not the least of which is the intense focus on the victim's mother's campaign to designate a hate crime label to the events. One particular sentence, while very troublesome by itself, I find to be representative of the POV problems present in this article:
The announcement did not include any reported mention of race and came one day before the 2008 United States presidential election, where United States Senator Barack Obama would become the first African American to be elected President of the United States and subsequently responsible for all matters related to the United States military.
The problem I have with this sentence is that it's extremely suggestive of a politically and racially motivated cover-up without solid backing from mainstream media suggesting the same. Even if unintentional, the sentence reads as though the crime would have been reported differently had a white person been elected president. Even if this sentence were to be removed, I feel that the overall tone of this article is still very troublesome because it does read as though the persons writing it have reached a conclusion of their own. Please don't think that I'm accusing the article's authors of any wrongdoings (my sincerest apologies if my comments come across as such) but, should I not bother doing any external research myself, I think that this article could likely sway my opinion on this matter and convince me that this was a racially motivated crime and that is exactly not our job if we're bound by the tenets of WP:NPOV in any way, shape or form. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Or possibly because people don't want to look to closely at that possibility? Denying race in this case is just as bad as overemphasizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.191.127 ( talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article was correctly moved from a bio to the event per WP:ONEEVENT, but the categories need to be replaced. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is it only Jan Pawel in the article title and not his wife?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There has been little if any information being given out on this case. Therefore the unofficial website has been closed. There is still a memorial group at facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
First, may these two rest in peace. There really is no evidence to prove this was a hate crime. There are crimes committed where the victim(s) is white or black and the suspect(s) is white or black and race is not the motivation. I think whoever made this article had an agenda to make it seem as if this was a black male/white female couple and they were killed by four white men, there would have been more media coverage. But I digress. B-Machine ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an excellent article, thorough without becoming mired in exhausting details. However, it has been assessed C-class, primarily for lack of "coverage". The last mention of the trial was from May 2011. It should be brought up to date by an editor familiar with the subject. Also, the page would benefit from an infobox, though it's not absolutely necessary. Boneyard90 ( talk) 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is one detail about this hate crime that puzzles me - apart from people who try to pretend it is not one, I mean. There is no indication that the criminals were dishonourably discharged from the service, which would seem to be inevitable on conviction of a crime like this. Can we add reliable info on their current service status? 213.205.241.158 ( talk) 03:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Murders of Jan Pawel and Quiana Jenkins Pietrzak appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,958 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
What amazes me is near-complete silence of mainstream mass-media about this murder. While looking for sources, I have noticed that major media outlets, such as The New York Times, BBC or CNN, did not write a word about it. One can only wonder why. Tymek ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, CNN did cover the story when the four assailants were arrested around November 4, 2008. http://m.cnn.com/cHTML/cnn/ne/crime/news/193302;jsessionid=5E306470430D1190DA1CE328A086FF97.live7i So did ABC News, as well as various newspapers in the Riverside, California and San Diego region. The New York Daily News did several articles on the subject, too. So did the London Telegraph. There is a facebook page that posts the links to several news articles on this story. You can view it here http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32478219373 15.251.169.69 ( talk) 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A tag has just been placed on the article. What is disputed here? Tymek ( talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is he really notable? IIRC, if a person is only notable as a victim, that person is not always notable. Thoughts? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The lead-in currently says "he was murdered along with his African-American wife." The only reason her race is relevant, as far as I can tell, is that some (such as his mother) believe the murders were racially motivated, and if that is the case I think it would be more appropriate to disclose her race in the Aftermath section, right before the sentence stating that his mother thinks the murders were racially motivated. I would have done it myself, but I wasn't sure which source to cite along with it. — Politizer talk/ contribs 16:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:NPOV requires articles to represent "fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". In my opinion, this article overwhelmingly presents the point of view that the killings were racially motivated. Except for the lead paragraph's sentence "...the Riverside County authorities maintain the motivation was robbery and the pending murder with special circumstances charges and rape charges do not include an assertion that the crime was racially motivated", the article presents no more evidence to support the view that the crime had no racial motivation while presenting many instances of the opposing view, not the least of which is the intense focus on the victim's mother's campaign to designate a hate crime label to the events. One particular sentence, while very troublesome by itself, I find to be representative of the POV problems present in this article:
The announcement did not include any reported mention of race and came one day before the 2008 United States presidential election, where United States Senator Barack Obama would become the first African American to be elected President of the United States and subsequently responsible for all matters related to the United States military.
The problem I have with this sentence is that it's extremely suggestive of a politically and racially motivated cover-up without solid backing from mainstream media suggesting the same. Even if unintentional, the sentence reads as though the crime would have been reported differently had a white person been elected president. Even if this sentence were to be removed, I feel that the overall tone of this article is still very troublesome because it does read as though the persons writing it have reached a conclusion of their own. Please don't think that I'm accusing the article's authors of any wrongdoings (my sincerest apologies if my comments come across as such) but, should I not bother doing any external research myself, I think that this article could likely sway my opinion on this matter and convince me that this was a racially motivated crime and that is exactly not our job if we're bound by the tenets of WP:NPOV in any way, shape or form. SWik78 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Or possibly because people don't want to look to closely at that possibility? Denying race in this case is just as bad as overemphasizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.191.127 ( talk) 17:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The article was correctly moved from a bio to the event per WP:ONEEVENT, but the categories need to be replaced. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is it only Jan Pawel in the article title and not his wife?-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There has been little if any information being given out on this case. Therefore the unofficial website has been closed. There is still a memorial group at facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 22:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
First, may these two rest in peace. There really is no evidence to prove this was a hate crime. There are crimes committed where the victim(s) is white or black and the suspect(s) is white or black and race is not the motivation. I think whoever made this article had an agenda to make it seem as if this was a black male/white female couple and they were killed by four white men, there would have been more media coverage. But I digress. B-Machine ( talk) 17:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an excellent article, thorough without becoming mired in exhausting details. However, it has been assessed C-class, primarily for lack of "coverage". The last mention of the trial was from May 2011. It should be brought up to date by an editor familiar with the subject. Also, the page would benefit from an infobox, though it's not absolutely necessary. Boneyard90 ( talk) 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
There is one detail about this hate crime that puzzles me - apart from people who try to pretend it is not one, I mean. There is no indication that the criminals were dishonourably discharged from the service, which would seem to be inevitable on conviction of a crime like this. Can we add reliable info on their current service status? 213.205.241.158 ( talk) 03:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)