Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Lead Section

According to Wikipedia:LEAD, the lead section should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". The lead for this article does not explain why this crime is interesting, notable and controversial. I would suggest mentioning two or three major controversies about the conduct of the investigation and the fact that 5 books have been published about the murder. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this point is on the right track. The title is misleading, as the article is not about the murder itself. It is not a description of the crime. Rather, it is a description of the controversy surrounding the crime and its ongoing resolve. Perk10 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

As such, the article is about the ongoing trial and aftermath of the murder. Perk10 (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Perhaps the statement by Cantwell deserves a sentence in the lead. The (largely localised) controversy is mentioned in the article, certainly, but I disagree that the article is not "about the murder". If you feel it's not, what information do you think should be removed?  pablo 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction I am making is between a description of the murder as an event versus a description of its legal bearing, the ramifications and resolution. If someone sees the title, he or she might think it is an article about the details of a murder, rather that the details of the trial and aftermath as a result of the murder. Perk10 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Surely one of the notable features of the case is that a student was murdered and her female flatmate was charged with the crime. I can't think of another murder that I've read about where that happened. At present, the lead doesn't mention that Kercher and Knox were flatmates. Bluewave (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bluewave. It is a stand-apart feature of the case. Perk10 (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Here is what I believe the introduction should say.

Meredith Kercher was a 21 year old British exchange student who was murdered in Perugia, Italy on November 1, 2007. She had been studying at the University of Perugia where thousands of foreign college students come each year to study Italian language and culture. Three people have been convicted in the killing: Amanda Knox, a fellow exchange student and housemate of Kercher’s from the Seattle area; Rudy Guede, a petty criminal originally from the Ivory Coast; and Raffaele Sollecito, the son of a wealthy Italian doctor. The case received widespread media coverage and remains the subject of intense international criticism by those who believe that Knox and Sollecito did not receive a fair trial. It has been called Italy's trial of the century.

Guede, whose conviction is not seriously being questioned, was found guilty in October 2008. The trial of Knox and Sollecito took place between January and December 2009 and was closely watched in both Europe and the United States. The verdict was covered live on US cable channels where legal commentators openly dismissed it as a "public lynching" and a "kangaroo court." Shortly after the December 4, 2009 verdict, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, appearing on national television, fielded questions from journalists about possible US Government action in the case. The US State Department has indicated that they will refrain from comment while the appeals process, which in Italy is often successful, is underway. The extent of any possible US Government intervention remains an open question.

I have placed a Neutrality challenged banner in the Introduction area.

PhanuelB (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• And I have removed it. If you wish to place a NPOV tag, you need to explain here exactly why you believe the article violates NPOV, pointing to exact sections and text - you can't do it just by posting your preferred version (which I note is 75% about the trial's controversy, and therefore completely fails WP:UNDUE). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead section does not say that the trial is notable because of controversy over whether AK and RS got a fair trial. It is a WP:BLP violation against AK and RS to ignore that. I do not have to point out an "exact section of text" because the problem is what is not there. This has been pointed out previously in unresolved discussions about the deficiencies of the lead section.

PhanuelB (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest therefore that you draft a short section, no more than a couple of sentences to avoid the UNDUE problem, which you would like to see added to the lead. It can then be discussed. And please give it up with the BLP violation issue; the mere location of the text about the controversy clearly can't constitute one. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

NathanWard1234 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Anyone who has done any research on this case knows the case is notable because of controversy. This case gained worldwide attention due to the controversy. Wikipedia does not have a page for every murder that occurs throughout the world. This article will remain incomplete until this topic is properly addressed. It is not always what is said that can make a body of work biased. It is often what is not said. Controversy is the main reason that this case is still in the news today. The details that led to the controversy should be one of the main talking points if this article. Refusal to discuss these points in great detail shows that the article has not been written in a neutral fashion. Therefore, PhaneulB was correct to add the banner. It is disturbing to see that those who are supposed to be neutral in this discussion, certainly are not.

The case is not "notable because of controversy". When you consider the size of the world, the 'controversy' is extremely local, centred on Seattle. Much of the 'controversy' on the internet regarding this case consists of identical or similar posts made across a huge number of venues by a person or people known as "PhanuelB".^{here are a few} pablo 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and outing of another editor are not in the spirt of Wikipedia. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither is contained in my post above.  pablo 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The only personal attack I can se is Nathan yet again accusing people of non-neutrality. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nathan, I removed the tag because Phanuel did not follow the procedure for placing one, which clearly explains that you must outline why the article is not NPOV. That doesn't mean "I don't like this version, here's mine". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly urge that the banner indicating that the neutrality of this article has been challenged be reinstated immediately. The current article is not by any stretch of the imagination a neutral article. Every piece of key evidence in this trial was fiercely, even bitterly contested. The adequacy and fairness of the trial and verdict have also been contested by a number of credible sources. Commentators of considerable standing have excoriated the verdict. The article, as it stands now, does not fairly reflect this controversy. It relies, for the most part, on a handful of published sources that have largely ignored the case of the defense.PietroLegno (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That The Murder of Meredith Kercher has been investigated, documented and the responsible parties charged and convicted is a fait accompli. What remains now is The Trial of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito and the controversy as to whether they received or can receive a fair trial. The two topics, although related, are very separate issues and both deserve a page dedicated to them. As little completely new evidence is likely to be introduced regarding the specifics of Ms. Kercher's murder, the ongoing and growing controversy surrounding their trial begins to overshadow the otherwise very straight forward facts of the murder investigation. To suggest, as some have, that no real controversy exists over the conduct of the trial or it's verdict is pure wishful thinking. Journalists employed by major news networks, news publications, gossip tabloids and internet blogs across three countries have been following the case religiously for three years. The only thing that's kept the story out of the news on a day to day basis is the snail slow pace of the Italian legal system. In its current form, WP article The Murder of Meredith Kercher, perhaps in an attempt to keep the focus on Ms. Kercher's murder rather than spinning off into controversy, has been pared down so far that it reads like a dry laundry list of facts with weak, ineffectual verbs and adjectives used wherever possible. This sort of milquetoast compromise, while technically accurate, does no one justice. It doesn't accurately convey the horror of Meredith's final minutes nor the overkill which defines the crime. It doesn't accurately described Rudy Guede's prior criminal inclinations nor the strength of the defense's objection to obviously compromised evidence and methodology. In short, limiting language like Big Brother trying to control thought crime, you paint an inaccurate and misleading picture that treats neither the accused nor the victim fairly. My suggestion would be to split the issue of the trial and subsequent appeals onto a new page (e.g. The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito) and limit details of the trial to a bare minimum in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. If separating the articles is not acceptable then I must support PhanuelB in his argument that the Intro section needs rewritten to include a more prominent statement regarding the international controversy that exists surrounding the case and that numerous phrases need reworded to more accurately express their importance. Tjholme (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the Neutrality banner should be reinstated and it should be made known very early in the article that the Murder or Trial is notable because of the controvery involved. My first choice would be a seperate article about the trial and controversy itself. Otherwise it should be the most prominent portion of the article. The murder of Meredith Kercher is tragic, but most noted for the controversy surrounding the case. When I consider the case I would put priority on 1. The contoversy of Knox and Sollecito's guilt or evidence. This includes the interrogation, investigation, forensics completed, Perugian judicial problems and the trial itself. 2. The role the media has played in the case. This would include the name Foxy Knoxy, prosecution leaks, international opinion, claims of possible anti-Americanism and notable opinions.Jaberryhill (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with reinstating the banner. The controversy surrounding this case exists for a reason. The present article is not neutral. In part this is because it is based on news coverage that is shallow, one-sided and in some cases flatly misleading.Charlie wilkes (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with reinstating the banner (because I think the article reads pretty neutrally) but I do agree that much of the news coverage was shallow (often), one-sided (sometimes) and flatly misleading (very often). I spent a lot of time researching the news sources for the article and agree that the standards of journalism were poor. However, we don't really have any other sources (even the books aren't very good and were mostly written before the Massei report). As an example of the worst of reporting, there were a lot of newspaper accounts of the committal hearing for Knox and Sollecito: some of these gave verbatim accounts of what the prosecutors had said at the hearing. I think only one UK paper made it clear that the hearing was held in closed court without reporters present and that the accounts of the proceedings were actually based on a later interview with the defence counsel! Several other UK papers reproduced the same story, but giving the impression that they were actually reporting from the court. In the worst cases, news reporting has been by journalists who weren't even in Italy and didn't even speak Italian! This all makes life difficult for us, but I don't think the solution is to stick a banner on the page. The best we can do is to compare the best of the reporting, try to separate the facts from the opinion and give more weight to reports which state their sources rather than reporting hearsay. Bluewave (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there is no need to restore the controversy banner. And DEFINITELY no need to have a seprate Trial of Knox & Sollecito page. Been there, done that. Jonathan (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Opinion noted Johathan but there are six editors who say it goes in because this section and article are not NPOV. The consensus is that a sufficient dispute exists.

The claim that I have a requirement to make suggestions of a couple of sentences is not supported by Wikipedia policy. My disagreement with the current lead section was clearly defined by the rewrite I provided and has been extensively discussed before. The article violates WP:BLP against Amanda Knox because it does not state the POV that she did not receive a fair trial. The subject is notable solely because of questions about whether AK received a fair trial and the current lead does not say that.PhanuelB (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, Wikipedia is not a majority vote. Jonathan (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a brutal and horrible murder.
The trials attracted attention because these three young people were accused, tried, and found guilty of this brutal and horrible murder.
The job of the defence team is to defend, in part by contesting the evidence brought forward. Evidence in many, if not most, trials is contested and examined. Does that make those trials "unfair"? Does it make it "NPOV" or a "BLP violation" to report the verdict without adding sentences effectively saying "despite being found guilty the accused stated; "I never done it, honest""? Obviously not.  pablo 14:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pablo: I'm not sure there's such a thing as a murder that isn't "brutal and horrible." The tragedy of Meredith's loss is not lost on any of us. The trial is notable not because defense lawyers say she didn't do it -- that happens often but not always. In this case the US Secretary of State was asked if the US would take action. That means a lot of credible people questioned the trial and the verdict. Commentators on US cable channels declared it a sham. That cannot be withheld from the readers here. PhanuelB (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't see that it is being witheld.

"A number of commentators in the United States have harshly criticised the Italian legal process, including Donald Trump,[101] Timothy Egan[102] and journalist Judy Bachrach.[103] Other commentators, including Wendy Murphy,[104] Ann Coulter[105] and Jeanine Pirro,[106] have viewed such criticism as misguided."

"Cantwell said she would seek assistance from US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton herself has not commented on the case, but a spokesman for the US Department of State stated at a press conference on 7 December 2009 that the Department had followed the case closely and would continue to do so. He said that the State Department's role is to ensure that any American citizen is treated fairly, according to local law. He added: "It is still in the early days but...we haven't received any indications necessarily that Italian law was not followed"."

seems to cover it. Still no comment from the Secretary of State so far.  pablo 16:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And lest anyone think the US Department of State has given up on assisting Americans in trouble abroad, think again. That is what is notable and what should not be withheld from the readers. Jonathan (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(1)I am never impressed when someone tries to shut off debate because we've "been there and done that." Any decision can be revisited. The idea is that articles can be improved over time through through the addition of new points of view. (2) The implication that the U.S. Secretary of State has accepted the verdict because she hasn't attacked attacked it in public is absurd on a number of levels as I should hope would be obvious. (3) Listing Coulter, Murphy, and Pirro on one side and Eagan, Trump, and Bachrach on the other is a specious attempt at balance. Coulter, Murphy, and Pirro are about the only notable commentators who have been pro-guilt (and Murphy is hardly notable). There are far, far more credentialed people who have excoriated the verdict. Since Phanuel has listed them I needn't do so again. The point is that a truly neutral article would point out the obvious: responsible opinion in the U.S. has been strongly against the verdict. To be fair we must make sure the article reflects this. PietroLegno (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect; balls. We could list every talking head who has ever commented on this case either way, but it would not in the end point out anything apart from the fact that people comment on the news. There is no "US position" on this case (as has been claimed in the past)- neither is there a "British position", and "Italian position" or a "European position". 'Responsible opinion', whatever that is, seems open to subjective interpretation; if you don't like an opinion (Murphy, above) then clearly its not 'responsible'. What is notable about Moore and Ciolino for instance? I've been waiting to see what their credentials are for some time.  pablo 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest we add a sentence at the end of the lead which says The murder of Meredith Kercher received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with the guilty verdict of Knox and Sollecito being disputed by some commentators. We had something like this in an earlier version of the article. It mentions the media attention (which is notable) and the fact that some (but by no means all) commentators have questioned the verdict. It expresses this in one sentence, which is the same weight as we give to the murder itself in the intro, so it might be argued that that this gives too much weight to the controversy, but I still think it merits a mention. What do others think. Bluewave (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to something like: "The case attracted much media attention with some questioning the fairness of the trial." to be added to the lead. Just keeping it simple and to the point.TMCk (talk) 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this either of those would be fine; no more an excessive amount of detail than this is is not needed in the lead as the various comments on the trial are already covered in the article.  pablo 14:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC) clarified  pablo 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Also think that would be fine. --FormerIP (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TMCk has said was I was trying to say...but more succinctly! So I'd agree with TMCk in preference to my own proposal. Bluewave (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that "some commentators" are mentioned by name further down the article, would actually using the phrase "some" or "some commentators" leave us open to people placing a tag in the lead?  pablo 15:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There probably would be some editors that would do just that but the lead is a summary of the sourced article and can (and should normally) stand without citations.TMCk (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to support a combination of Bluewave's and TMCk's wording. I think the naming of the three countries involved (primarily) in the controversy is more accurate. "The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some questioning the fairness of the trial." Still kind of weak but reasonable and acceptable IMO. Tjholme (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS Anna Momigliano of Foreign policy magazine states that "US cable channels declared the verdict a sham." That's not "some questioning the fairness of the trial." PhanuelB (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would accept Tjholme's version. Does anyone object? (I'm not sure whether PhanuelB's comment expresses agreement or dissent.) If there are no objections within a reasonable time, I'll ask Black Kite to make the change. Bluewave (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine with that one too. Singling out one of the many people who have acommented on the case in the lead (which I think is what PhanuelB is suggesting, but who knows) is not appropriate for the lead; belongs (if anywhere) with the others, further down.  pablo 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You have my blessings for Tjholme's version.TMCk (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}The proposed edit is to add the following as a new paragraph at the end of the current lead section:

The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some questioning the fairness of the trial.

I believe the above discussion constitutes consensus for this edit. Bluewave (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a word of thanks to Bluewave, TMCk & pablo. I believe in credit where credit is due. Over the last month, frankly, I'd come to believe that this 'discussion' of proposed changes is a sham and that the existing admins have no intention of allowing any change that draws attention to the controversy surrounding the trial and subsequent guilty verdicts. Now I come in today to catch up and find you all have reached consensus on what I consider to be a positive change. One that I participated in, even. Now I have to rethink everything. Maybe civilized discussion can lead to some changes. Slower than I'd prefer, smaller than I'd prefer, but positive change nevertheless. It's a move in the right direction. Good show. Tjholme (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section continued

I have a further proposal for the lead section. At present, the relationship between MK and AK is not mentioned but I think that it is a notable feature of the case that one of the people convicted of the murder was the victim's flatmate. Currently, we have a sentence that says: On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner.

I suggest that we amend this to say something like: On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner. What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a notable feature, and that it should be included in the lead.  pablo 20:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I support that edit although it raises the question if we should include Sollecito's and Knox's relationship at the time.TMCk (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I think the fact that an alleged murderer was a student flatmate is quite notable, whereas the fact that two of the accused had a romantic attachment is less notable. Bluewave (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and was merely thinking about what others might expect to be added (with some good reason).TMCk (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Please replace the following sentence in the lead section:

On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner.

with the sentence:

On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner.

Thank you. Bluewave (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mignini conviction for abuse of office.

Quoting the source for the statement about Mignini's conviction. "Mignini was convicted by a Florence court of exceeding his powers by tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings between 1968 and 1985." I am revering the last edit to restore the name of the case. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In keeping with Wikipedia:BRD policy, I reverted FormerIP's edit and started a discussion here. --Footwarrior (talk) 02:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As said on your talk page :"tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved “Monster of Florence” serial killings". This is a true statement, but note that is is the "police officers and journalists" who were investigating the case, not Mignini.. In other words, the statement that Mignini investigated the MoF case is not supported by the source. It's just a matter of being accurate. There is a relationship between Mignini and the MoF case, but I think it would be far too much detail to explain that for the purposes of this article. All that is really relevant is that he was investigated for a case unrelated to the MK case. --FormerIP (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What case was Mignini investigating when he committed the offenses that led to his conviction for abuse of office? --Footwarrior (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was the suicide of someone called Narducci. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or as Mignini believed, the murder of Narducci to protect the conspiracy behind the Monster of Florence murders. The investigation is described on the Italian Wikipedia article on the Monster of Florence case. [1] --Footwarrior (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But he wasn't the investigator in the MoF case, hence my edit. --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep repeating this as if repetition would make it true. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not following. You seem to be agreeing before that the case in question is the Narducci case - ie a different case to the MoF case. The source doesn't say that he investigated the MoF case, it just has his name and "Monster of Florence" in the same sentence. I just looked up the prosecutor in the MoF case. For information, it was it:Silvia Della Monica. --FormerIP (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be stuck on the idea that there was only one investigator in the MoF case. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But you seem to want to include something in the article that is untrue and unsourced. --FormerIP (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I put back the link to the MoF case using wording from the reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll live with it, but it is really just adding more unimportant information to an article which already contains more information that will be useful to most readers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources have made clear that Mignini's heavily criticized actions in the MOF case relate to his work in Amanda's case. The MOF case went on for many years with different prosecutors and investigators. Mignini's idea that Narducci was involved in the MOF case has been heavily criticized. It relates to Amanda's case because it shows he has a history of not following evidence and of interrogations that are not in search of the truth. Preston says Mignini accused him of being an accessory to murder. Preston was not an accessory to murder. The Committee to Protect Journalists heavily criticized Mignini for his jailing of Spezi and harrassment of Preston. What I say here is what the reliable sources say and it isn't in the article. See the criticism section. It's all sourced dead nuts up there.PhanuelB (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks resolved Phanuel, although you are welcome to raise further points that might directly help to improve the article if you care to. --FormerIP (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This part of the MoF case should be covered on Wikipedia, but it belongs in the Monster of Florence article instead of here. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I was just about to say that myself. It's irrelevant in this article. And Phanuel - "It relates to Amanda's case because it shows he has a history of not following evidence and of interrogations that are not in search of the truth" - WP:SYNTHESIS, as you very well know - this would clearly not be allowed. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The allegation of synthesis is false. As above, "What I say here is what the realiable sources say." Preston and Van Sant among others have specifically stated the thesis I mention. PhanuelB (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of more general changes

Can you suggest a specific change to the wording of the article which would assuage your worries and which we could consider? Ian Spackman (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to this page Ian and I hope you have an open mind. Take a look at this diff. This defines much of what I think the article should say. I have repeatedly challenged people to find anything that isn't sourced and no one could. The best way to view it is to look in the "New Section on Criticism" (collapsed as soapboxing)here None of this was soapboxing. PhanuelB (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No Phanuel, that way was a non-starter – it would be rather like making Marcel Berlin’s op ed here the centrepiece of the article. The best way forward is to make specific and discreet suggestions for changes: sweeping ones at this point are not going to happen. We may welcome or decry that. But they won’t. So, do make a plausible proposal. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That Op-ed is 90% about criticism of the US system and I'm not sure that is relevant to this article. Did you see where he says there's a pretty good argument that she should have been found innocent? Fair enough. Wikipedia articles are supposed to report facts about opinions. Is his opinion notable? That's a close call. I'm calling for quite a bit of discussion about what observers say about the trial. He's saying he doesn't like the US response, not that he agrees with the verdict. The lengthy criticism section I put together wasn't necessarily intended to go in as is. The idea is that it puts in one place content that I believe belongs in various places in the article. Feel free to say what you think is wrong with what I wrote in that criticism section.PhanuelB (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I didn’t make myself clear. If you want to make progress you will need to propose something that is intended to go in as it is. (As to the Marcel Berlins article, then it would only become relevant if the off the top of me ’ead articles which he is responding to became a significant part of the article, and needed contextualising.) Ian Spackman (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of Rudy Guede Section

This is what the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" section should say:

Shortly after the murder in the early hours of November 2, 2007 Rudy Guede was seen dancing at a local discotheque. On the evening of November 2 he was also seen at local bars and there was a report that he did not stop dancing when a moment of silence was observed for Meredith Kercher. The next day on November 3, 2007 he fled Perugia.

By November 18, 2007 forensic evidence had come back linking Guede to the crime and a European wide man hunt was initiated. Police quickly learned that he had been accessing his various online accounts and made arrangements with one of his friends, Giacomo Benedetti, to talk with him via Skype. During at least three hours of secretly monitored conversations with Benedetti, Guede gave conflicting accounts of the night. At no time did he implicate Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.

At one point during the conversation Guede stated, “I wasn’t there that evening. If they have found my fingerprints it means I must have left them there before… I have nothing to do with that night.” Later during the same call, Guede sketched out his eventual alibi that someone else had entered the apartment and killed Meredith while he was in the bathroom. During subsequent police interrogations Guede would stick with his story of other attackers and consensual sexual contact. It is not clear to what extent he has ever specifically identified Raffaele Sollecito or Amanda Knox as the real attackers, or to what extent he may have been subject to police coercion or suggestion. He did not testify at their trial.

Guede was apprehended on a train in Germany on November 20, 2007 and extradited back to Italy shortly thereafter. At the time of his arrest, 19 days after the murder, German police photographed cuts to the inside of the fingers of his right hand. Advocates for Amanda Knox would later point out that such injuries are characteristic of an attacker using a knife without a hilt in a stabbing incident.

PhanuelB (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

None of that is usable without cites, sorry Phanuel. You really should start focusing on detail rather than wholesale change - I think you are just wasting your time. --FormerIP (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means anything that goes in must be cited properly. My record for citing what I say is pretty good. PhanuelB (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are understanding the process for this wrongly, Phanuel. We are supposed to write material according to what is in reliable sources, not compose something we personally like then search out cites for it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Reviewing the existing article it's clear that that has not been the process in many cases. As an example, consider that the citation [17] regarding Rudy Guede's history of criminal behaviour. The WP:RS reads "Perugia bar tender... heard a noise downstairs in his home and found Guede wandering around with a large knife. There was a confrontation between the two, which ended when Guede ran away. On four occasions, (bartender) went to Perugia's central police station to report the break-in, identify Guede as the culprit and to detail how the intruder was armed and threatened him. " After translation this important and significant statement became,"A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife " IMO this is a clear and intentional attempt to downplay the information presented and to slant the tone of the article through omission. Some individuals have been very careful not to lie by presenting material not supported by WP:RS but have, IMO intentionally misled readers by paraphrasing reliable sources using bland and ineffectual language to lessen the impact of their message. And so "a break-in" becomes a 'trespass' and "criminal trespass" becomes "entered uninvited". If the process you outline had been followed the worst that could be said of the MoMK article is that it's too dry and lacks readability... but as it is I'd add somewhat misleading and slanted against Knox to that statement.. While we're on the subject I propose that the statement described above (under section: 'Rudy Guede') be edited to read as per the source material or faithfully paraphrased using the same language. Agreed? Tjholme (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't accuse editors of trying to mislead readers. I can't remember the editing history of the example that you pick...I may or may not have had a hand in writing that text...but if I was approaching that source afresh, some of the things I would be thinking about are:

• The source is the Daily Mail: not considered part of the "quality press" but not a tabloid. Citable, but with caution.
• The Mail employed an Italian-speaking journalist (called Nick Pisa) who reported on the trial from Perugia and is therefore a reliable source for factual events. However, this article was not written by him.
• This particular article was written just after the trial verdict and looks like an attempt to make some sort of story from old news reports, at a time when there is no current news about the case. So we need to be on the lookout for additional levels of "interpretation" by editors.
• Looking at the whole article, there are some signs that attempts have been made to make it a bit more "sensational": the image of AK with the machine gun, captioned "Bizarre: Amanda Knox fools around with an antique machine gun", the sub-heading "FOXY'S BEHAVIOUR", the mention of Knox's "pink Rampant Rabbit vibrator" and so on. I would therefore be cautious about reproducing any part of the article verbatim but factual material may be OK.
• Coming to the episode of Guede with the Perugian bar-tender, this is presented in the article as fact. So far as I now this was testimony presented at Knox and Sollecito's trial and has never been properly tested in court as evidence against Guede. For instance, in the court, Guede did not state his side of the story (he didn't need to: he wasn't on trial) and the bar-tender was not cross-examined in the way that he would be if Guede had been tried for the alleged offence. Once again, this would tell me to treat the account with caution and certainly not to repeat it verbatim.

So is the source convincing enough to be used by an encyclopedia to state that Guede committed a "criminal trespass" (as you put it)? I would say definitely not. Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I quote from WP:AGF

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

The proposed section I have authored above "Failure to Arrest Rudy Guede Prior to the murder" documents and sources these issues dead nuts. Of course Guede committed "criminal trespass" in the Cristian Tramontano incident. In fact he committed a far more serious crime. Nathan Abraham provides a first hand statement about it in the 48 Hours documentary. Guede was inside somebody's house behind closed doors while they slept. He brandished a knife in his escape.

This modus operendi was often cited by lawyers for AK and RS. See also the first hand statement of Maria del Prato in the TLC documentary. It's a big deal when you find somebody armed with a knife prowling behind closed doors in your private space. Her statement is so compelling that it overrides that fact that he wasn't charged or convicted in the crime. It's a BIG deal when you're doing the same things that were observed at the crime scene in the weeks before the murder.

The problem is that a large majority of reliable sources say that AK is charged with something Guede did. Detailed discussion of Guede's bad acts prior to the crime is essential to arguments that she didn't do it. The question of whether MK would still be alive if the Italian police had done their jobs properly is implied in the TLC documentary and is specifically stated in the cites in my proposed section above. PhanuelB (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave - Then again, was Rudy Guede's behavior so benign as to be accurately described as "uninvited entry" ? He wasn’t a pushy door-to-door salesman with his foot in the door that wouldn’t take no for an answer.. He broke into an occupied residence armed with a knife and threatened the occupant with it when he was discovered. That is significant and relevant to the MoMK case. I'm not proposing that the Daily Mail source material be cut-n-pasted to this article. Only that the material be paraphrased in good faith using words that accurately express the gravity of the event. The mischaracterization of the bartender statement is the perfect example of the kind of downplaying of information that supports reasonable doubt of Knox's guilt that I've repeatedly written of. Tjholme (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia does not state that someone has committed a criminal act (eg criminal trespass) unless there is an extremely good source. The usual requirement for making that statement would be if the person had been found guilty by a court of law. Declaring someone guilty of a criminal act without due process of law would require an extraordinarily convincing sources. In my view, the Daily Mail article does not come close. There is a law (in Europe at least) that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Declaring them guilty when they have not been tried for an alleged crime is probably libellous and might be described by such terms as "kangaroo court". That is not the role of Wikipedia. Bluewave (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article and a number of others reflect what was said in a deposition submitted at trial by Cristian Tramontano. The Motivation document talks about it but the translation is pitiful. My source above is ABC news. There is also available on Frank Sfarzo's site (Perugia shock) a first hand statement by Frank of his conversation with Cristian Tramontano. Somebody has gotten Perugia Shock blocked from Wikipedia and that needs to be changed. There is significant reliable information there including many crime scene photos and Sfarzo's eye witness statements of what happened in Court. He of course was there throughout the trial and speaks in the TLC documentary. Autopsy photos released by police which never should have been in the public domain are there also.

There is an increased burden to say somebody did something illegal when he wasn't convicted of anything. The eyewitness statements and other sources that I cite meet that burden.

"Cristian Tramontano, whose summary information made on 7.1.2008 were acquired hearing on 26.6.2009, reported being robbed in a home by a boy who, seeing himself discovered earn the Scythian Deer and found the closed door, pulled out a knife with which he threatened the same Tramontano, who had chased him out of the house. The Tramontano stated that he seemed to recognize the author of that fact in which Rudi saw the pictures published in newspapers." Page 35 Motivation doc... the scythian Deer?

PhanuelB (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There may well be other sources but I was answering Tjholme's point which was specifically about the Daily Mail article. Bluewave (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave - Does the quote from the Motivational Doc cited by PhanuelB rise to the standard of "Extremely Good Source' IYO? In other words, would it be acceptable to paraphrase Guede's actions using words like "attempted to rob", "threatened with knife", "scythian Deer" as stated in the document , and recite the new source? Ok, maybe not scythian Deer.. Tjholme (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The article currently says: "A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife", which I think covers it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Uninvited and carrying a knife" does not say that he drew the knife as a weapon. There's a big difference.

Here is the correct translation from the English translation of the Motivation Document. The translation I had provided above was from an earlier effort.

"Cristian Tramontano, whose brief deposition the subject of July 1, 2008 was acquired at the hearing of June 6, 2009, testified about an [attempted] robbery in his home, carried out by a young man who, seeing that he had been observed, tried to exit the house and, finding the door locked, pulled out a jackknife with which he threatened Tramontano, who was following him to make him leave the house. Tramontano declared that he believed he recognised that the thief was Rudy when he saw his picture published in the newspapers."

By contrast here is the statement of Frank Sfarzo who talks of his conversation with Tramontano. Frank runs the Perugia Shock web site and has been a close observer of the case. He lives in Perugia and knows many of those involved. His English is not perfect. A thorough police investigation of the murder would have included an extensive investigation of this incident. I also question why this deposition cannot be put in the public domain where those with an interest in the case can see it. Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, has never denied that this was Guede.

"I just finished speaking in some way with Christian T., who I reached in his hometown. It was a difficult way to speak, with someone in the middle. But that's what Christian said. It was a warm night in September, he was sleeping with his Polish girlfriend Monika in his elevated loft bed. Some noise woke him up. He looked down and he saw a black boy searching in their drawers. The guest had entered through a window they had left open and he wasn't aware that someone was sleeping in the room, since the bed was elevated. Christian realized it was his neighbor, Rudy, who he knew only by sight. He told him to go away. Rudy thought it would be better to leave the house like a gentleman, through the door and not through the window. But the door was defective and he had trouble opening it...Then Christian says he called the police, and they arrived immediately, in just 2 hours. The police said he could come to the station the next day and report the intruder. But Christian let it go. It must not have been a very frightening experience for him and his girlfriend if they didn't even have the time to file a suit....Naturally, when three months later he saw that the same uninvited guest was the main suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher, he took the time to go to the police station and testify."

PhanuelB (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What Perugia Shock says is irrelevant, because it is not an RS. Basically per WP:BLP, we need to go by secondary sources and not refer to the Michelli report, particularly because this concerns unproven allegations about serious criminal activity. What's currently in the article reflects what is in the secondary source cited. --FormerIP (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perugia Shock is not a reliable secondary source but Frank Sfarzo may be a reliable primary source in the quote above. He is saying what Tramontano told him. Frank was used as a primary source on the TLC documentary which really is the defining commentary on the case. There are plenty of reliable sources that confrim what they saw in the Tramontano deposition. I used ABC above. There are no WP:BLP violations WHATSOEVER with what I say about Guede and/or Mignini. Any allegations to the contrary are false. It's all sourced dead nuts. Allegations or suggestions of WP:SYN are also false. The quote above is not from the Micheli report, also not a reliable source. The Massei report is a reliable source for the fact that Cristian Tramontano made a deposition that was submitted in court, nothing more. PhanuelB (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Phanuel, I think you are still confused about the distinction, for WP purposes, between sources and people. Perugia Shock is not an RS, so nothing on there can be used on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest using this reference, already used in the article? "School Owner Testifies in Knox Trial That Convicted Killer Stole Knife". ABC news. 27 June 2009. Retrieved 11 March 2010.

This current article says "A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife". The reference makes it clear the encounter was much more serious. "The thief -- who Tramontano identified as Guede -- first used a chair to keep Tramontano at a distance, and then pulled out a switchblade knife." --Footwarrior (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Footwarrior - Agreed. @ FormerIP - With due respect, Sir, did you read any of the previous dozen or so comments or just drop by to slip in the WP:BLP tripwire? Re FormerIP "What's currently in the article reflects what is in the secondary source cited." The wording regarding Guede's burglary of Tramontano's apartment as it currently reads (i.e. uninvited guest, etc) is nothing at all like what appears in the cited source material or any other source I'm aware of, though it does, oddly enough, echo of Frank Sfarzo's voice in the last line of his Tramontano interview piece. I wonder if perhaps some editor from this project may have read that line at Perugia Shock back in the early days of the investigation when Frank exhibited a decidedly "Knox Guilty" bias? Just one of those weird coincidences I guess. In any event, the point of all this discussion is that the description of the Tramontano incident as it exists is so watered down as to be misleading in its banality and needs to be changed to more faithfully echo the language that has been used in any number of sources. I'm going to try an work up a new, more accurate paraphrasing of one of the bolder (but wp:rs) sources and present it for consensus tomorrow so we can move forward constructively in advancing the article. Thanks for bringing up the Day Care lady as well. We'll need to work on that flaccid description next. Tjholme (talk) 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Little help here. I'd like to propose a change to the wording under discussion from "Guede entered his home uninvited, carrying a knife" to read something along the line of "A bartender has also alleged that Guede broke into his home, armed with a knife." I think the new wording is closer to what the WP:RS was expressing. This is already compatible with the citation used [17] Do any of you wordsmiths have a decent alternative to "broke in" ? I'm drawing a blank. Seems Guede climbed in through an open window so I'm not sure that 'broke in' is entirely accurate but 'entered uninvited' is too mild IMO. Something in between? Tjholme (talk) 02:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Protected

Heat > Light. Please propose new text using {{editprotected}}. Stick to discussing the article. Thank you.

The article is becoming unmanageable again. The number of single purpose accounts appearing on the article suggests that either sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or a concerted off-wiki campaign to influence the article is underway. The final edit tonight, the first edit of a new account which knows the citation template immediately ([2]) is the latest example of this. Any further changes to the article should be discussed and agreed here rather than unilaterial contentious changes being made. I am also going to raise an SPI concern, although this does appear to be more likely to be a concerted off-wiki campaign issue. If so, WP:RFAR may be the only avenue; this is becoming more than a content dispute. Note to any admin answering an {{editprotected}} request - it may be worth checking the contribution of histories of editors appearing to represent consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Does anything appear unreasonable?Perk10 (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC) What I mean is hopefully valuable discussions don't get interrupted because of the incident this evening with that edit. Perk10 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I checked the latest edit and it actually seems to be on a new topic, not a continuation of other topics that would lend to suspicious of sockpuppetry. (Unless it is per a section I didn't see on the Talk Page.) Perk10 (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I also suspect meatuppetry ... this comment especially makes me wonder: "Opinion noted Johathan but there are six editors who say it goes in because this section and article are not NPOV. The consensus is that a sufficient dispute exists." Jonathan (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Indeed. That latest edit, for example, is the first edit ever by an account, which appears completely comfortable with the webcite format. That's suspicious in itself. This is the latest in a long line of new accounts (I count at least ten) which have been created in the last 1-2 months, which have 90-100% of their edits concentrated on this article whilst appearing to share the same POV, and attempting to represent consensus on this talkpage. I have asked for advice on how to proceed. This should not prevent discussion on the article continuing here. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I think sticking to argument is the best way to proceed. Consensus serves argument (not the other way around) and exists only to give input on if something passes the test of logic and the rules of Wikipedia, correct? I have sensed that too much emphasis on consensus may exist for this page. In other words, sticking to argument could help weed out mere "agreeing", versus original contribution. Perk10 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 Technically, yes; however Wikipedia still does operate on consensus, and numerous new accounts appearing to represent consensus is a classic method of attempting to influence the slant of an article, especially a contentious one like this. This is especially vital given the upcoming appeals, when the article may get more hits from the general public. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I was offering in that a way to internally prevent that by letting things lean toward valid/invalid arguments rather than reliance on consensus. In many instances in the world is valid argument more threatened by consensus than aided. As admins, the responsibility is to not let that happen. Perk10 (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 I think that the eye should be kept on argument, since one way to not address argument, is to say that there is an issue of parroting. Perk10 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 ”The article is becoming unmanageable again.” This raises the question of who is trying to “manage” the article and for what purpose. Opposing opinions continue to be expressed but how is this suddenly different? One edit by a new account hardly constitutes an edit war. Using a proper format for a citation is suspicious? I think that’s a stretch. Where is the assumption of good faith? The first citation I used (in an unrelated article), I studied the instructions, copied format from an existing citation, and tested/corrected it repeatedly before finally saving. Cannot someone else have done the same? If not assuming good faith, some could say the timing of this locking the article is suspicious. Some editors have argued against the reliability of sources that raise serious issues with the trail & verdict, even going so far as to deny the existence of a former FBI agent who argues persuasively that prosecution claims are not consistent with the evidence. Now a secondary news source features a new article that would appear to validate Steve Moore’s credentials: http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators--Former-FBI-Agent-says-Knox-is-innocent-101839513.html?commentPage=0 [Since beginning draft of these comments, I’ve just noted the reference to the ABC Good Morning America interview also.] – and the article is promptly locked for what I would consider a flimsy excuse. I would hope that is only a coincidence and not make an accusation on that basis but is it any less “suspicious” than a newcomer using a proper citation format? ”...appearing to represent consensus is a classic method of attempting to influence the slant of an article...” This argument could apply equally against newcomers or against a perceived coalition of editors and administrators who may appear (from a certain point of view) to have been sitting on the article for many months to prevent others from coming in and challenging the existing POV. On another subject, there is a lot of effort being put into dissecting minute details of evidence that I think may be beyond what should be the scope of this article. Consider your audience. Most people who read the article while unfamiliar with the case are only going to be confused by much of the stuff that has been expounded here recently. Many may not read beyond the introduction. But one of the most basic facts that should be given due weight in the introduction is that there is much controversy and concern by knowledgeable and credible persons over the fairness of the trial and verdict. Ignoring this fact or burying it toward the end of the article is not being neutral. I wouldn’t try to argue one side or the other but give readers the basic information and the references to allow them to research the details and arguments (and form their own informed opinions) if they are interested. Please let all editors’ input be considered on its merit. I would like to see more consideration given to the accuracy and fairness (NPOV) of the article and less concern over the perceived motivation of the editors. Kermugin (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If the article did not have a long history of edit-warring, disruption, sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, SPAs, groups of editors working together to influence the POV of the article, not to mention a history of disruption on the talk page which has already led to a number of blocks and topic-bans, then the article would not have to be "managed". The issue isn't actually the lead - I actually agree with you that the controversy should be mentioned, which is why I asked Phanuel to suggest a wording; I'm not going to edit it myself as I need to be seen to remain neutral, but I'd certainly action an editprotected request that had the consensus of long-standing editors here. No, the issue is one of probable violation of Wikipedia policies as I mentioned above, and it is being investigated at the moment. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I think the affronting of certain kinds of information signals that there is violation of another sort on this page. On the "meat puppetry" entry, it mentions that the accusation itself is wary: "Wired columnist Lore Sjöberg puts "meat puppet" first on a satirical list of "common terms used at Wikipedia," giving its supposed Wikipedia meaning as "someone you disagree with".[19]" As well, in reviewing the rules on abuse of Wikipedia (see Gaming the System), certain trends are apparent on this article. So a review would be most welcome. Perk10 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Not quite with you there, Perk; what do you mean by "affronting of certain kinds of information signals"?  pablo 20:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I have reached an age and level of accomplishment where I can recognize sophistry when I see it. Seriously, Black Kite, this is getting terribly Kafkaesque in as much as we are seeing anonymous "judges" examining imaginary violations in the light of overly vague and subjective laws. You say, "it is being investigated at the moment." In the interest of transparency do you mind telling exactly who is doing the investigating (what administrator), under what authority, and using what statutory law, case law, and canons of interpretation? I have read through the history of the article and think your suggestion that there has been excessive edit-warring and disruption is simply wrong with regards recent history and is the product of your own preferences and biases. As for other imagined violations (I refuse, as an adult, to use infantile words like sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry), my challenge to you is to prove these allegations using clear and convincing evidence that any layperson of good intelligence could understand. The fact is you can't and you know you can't. It is possible that there are groups of editors on both sides of the debate working together to influence the article's point of view. But you will never be able to prove it. So in effect you have laws that forbid crimes the existence of which can never be proved. This makes no sense from a legal point of view but it does create myriad opportunities for the arbitrary exercise of power. The plain fact is that this article has becomes as hostile to newcomers as it is possible to be. New editors are welcome only so long as they don't harbor the absurd notion that they will actually be allowed to improve the article.PietroLegno (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC) @ Black Kite - Could you be more specific as to who you're alleging is engaged in sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry ? I, for one, have commented on topics that interest me and voiced my support when appropriate but haven't "edited" anything, boldly or otherwise, as it appears that a handful of individuals are bent on blocking any changes to the article. Attempting to edit the article into something more relevant and balanced under the current conditions strikes me as a somewhat pointless gesture. As there are only a handful of editors involved here and about half of those appear to be resisting any expansion of the article to include issues of judicial malfeasance, compromised evidence or the controversy surrounding the case in general, I can only assume you're referring to me or one of the two or three other newcomers to the discussion that have voiced a dissenting view. I am insulted at the implication that to disagree with you or your cohort's position is evidence of being a meatpuppet. I respectfully suggest you retract your allegations. Tjholme (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) I don't really understand why people are concerned about the article being protected. It really makes no difference, except that there will be extra work for admins implementing changes that are agreed by consensus, and we editors will have to make sure we really have consensus for any changes we want to make (which we ought to be doing anyway). I suppose it also prevents us from using the BRD process, but that has not been very successful on this article anyway. The benefit for us editors is that it means that we won't be wasting time and effort in edit wars in article space and can focus our efforts on sorting conflicts on the talk page. Bluewave (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Bluewave - It has to do with the reason Black Kite gave for protecting the article. The practical effect of a protected article is not the point; it is the principal of the decision that we are discussing here, in very well-reasoned form, I might add. The reason we are discussing the decision is that it (the content/questions it brings up) bears on the writing of the article as a whole. Perk10 (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC) In which case, MLauba's decision to collapse the section seems out of step and raises concerns as well. We were discussing the decision to protect the article and the reason Black Kite gave for doing so. Collapsing the section when the section consists of valid points reads as an attempt to put it out of view due the content in the section, not because of a heat > light issue. Many times light does generate heat. It is one of light's byproducts, at times, such as with a candle flame. Perk10 (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC) MLauba claims (by implication) that we aren't discussing the article, when we exactly are. Perk10 (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 Yes, but not in this section. This section merely provides the rationale for protection of the article. Any further discussion of content should take place in the relevant location. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC) What about discussion of the decision and the principle of the decision? It wasn't marked as "Announcement", so it seemed okay to discuss it. We should steer this page in the direction of open, even if lively, discussion, not close it down. (I think for that matter whether on the Talk Page or the article.) Black Kite said, as did Bluewave, that the Talk Page remains a place to discuss, but I would like to offer - not when sections get collapsed. Should this discussion be taking place in a section of its own? Perk10 (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite's announcement could be the place to place to discuss this, and MLauba's title statement (in the box encasing this discussion) sounds like a category title for "new text {tlx|editprotected}}". Just how it seems to me. But we can find another place to have this discussion on the Talk Page if the admins want to do it that way. I disagree with MLauba's statement in the edit history though: "collapsing discussion not contributing to improving the article. A bit more reason and less emotion please." Maybe it is emotional for MLauba, but the quantity of reasoning in these comments is actually high and the quality, rich. A lot of important well-considered points here. Perk10 (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC) It was collapsed because the discussion had become more and more bickering among editors. Nothing to be gained here, move along. MLauba (Talk) 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC) The main problem with this article is not "meatpuppets" but inaccurate and misleading information from sources that are nominally reliable.Charlie wilkes (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC) MLauba - Not bickering at all. Discussing important matters in a dipolmatic, open fashion - something in line with the intentions of Wikipedia itself. Perk10 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC) There are necessary responsibilities involved in upholding, adhering, and honoring NPOV. Authors, editors, and admins participate with that responsibility. There are consequences when someone is in breech of that requirement, such as being in jeopardy of losing the privilege. That is a fact of Wikipedia. Perk10 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Moore a Reliable Source

Former FBI agent Steve Moore appeared on ABC Good Morning America today, 2-Sep-10, and was interviewd by George Stephanopoulos. He is a reliable source and his credentials have been verified by a major news organization. PhanuelB (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview on ABC would be a reliable source (although this doesn't automatically mean include it in the article - it depends what was said and how significant it is). It wouldn't make other material by the same person RS, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview with Steve Moore on ABC is a reliable source for the opinion of Steve Moore.  pablo 19:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Steve Moore has now given interviews on ABC, CBS, and NBC as well as a local Seattle station. He is without question a reliable source. I would submit that people who challenge Mr. Moore's reliability while accepting Ms. Nadeau's without question even when she is writing for the Daily Beast are not serious or neutral.PietroLegno (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding, Pietro. The source for RS purposes is the material, not the person. Unless the person has a tatoo containing useful data for Wikipedia. An interview on a national TV station will be an RS in most cases. An essay on a personal website will not be an RS in most cases. Whether Steve Moore has said anything in the TV interview worth noting in the article is another matter, but I haven't seen the interview so I can't tell you. --FormerIP (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The InjusticeinPerugia site where Steve Moore has published his articles is best classified as an advocacy site. It was there before he came along so it's not a personal site for him under the meaning of Wikipedia policy. Note that none of the pro innocence side is suggesting that Anne Bremner, Ted Simon or any of the other material on the Friends of Amanda or InjusticeinPerugia sites are reliable sources of fact or neutral opinion on the case. Steve Moore, because of his background, has been designated as an important commentator on CBS, NBC, and ABC. All three segments today were in the range of 9 minutes. This means his writings, even if not published, carry that prestige. He was selected because of his background and his opinion, not as a spokesperson for one side. Because of confidentiality issues FBI agents don't normally publish anything for the public to see. Their work is peer reviewed but not where the public can see it.

So Moore is one category of commentator. John Q. Kelly, Judy Bachrach, and Paul Ciolino were brought in as outside experts by the networks which make them a higher level of RS. This is in contrast to Moore who wouldn't be there if he didn't have an opinion on the case. Doug Preston was writing a book about the MOF case so he can speak with expertise about the Italian legal system. He is an eye-witness to events which call into question the fitness of Giuliano Mignini to hold office. He is a reliable secondary source on issues of the quality of Italian criminal investigations, particularly those involving Giuliano Mignini.

Note that ALL (as far as I can see) Wikipedia pages relating to controversial criminal convictions publish links to the relevant advocacy sites.PhanuelB (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a personal site. The fact that it is also an advocacy site doesn't contradict this. It's a personal site because it is produced by a private individual. ("Text contents of this website are copyright, 2010, Bruce Fisher"). --FormerIP (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please suggest any relevant addition of Moore's statements based precisely on what has been presented on the reliable TV shows, properly referenced, using {{editprotected}}. And I again caution you in the strongest terms against any further attempt to build any synthesis on the prosecutor on this talk page. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I quote directly from Wikipedia's own article regarding common law - evidence - expert witness. "An expert witness, professional witness or judicial expert is a witness, who by virtue of education, training, skill, or experience, is believed to have expertise and specialised knowledge in a particular subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially and legally rely upon the witness's specialized (scientific, technical or other) opinion about an evidence or fact issue within the scope of his expertise, referred to as the expert opinion, as an assistance to the fact-finder. By the above definition, 26 year FBI veteran Steve Moore certainly qualifies as an expert witness. Mr. Moore's bonfides have been vetted by the three largest news networks in the United States (ABC, NBC & CBS) and his opinion presented as expert opinion regarding the conduct of the MK murder investigation and the evidence collected. As these three WP:RS news sources as well as numerous smaller or hyperlocal news sources (KOMO, KING5 et al) are satisfied as to Steve's identity, expertise and specialised knowledge I move that we agree in general to accept Mr Moore's opinion as expert testimony in whatever form it appears (text, audio or video) and allow it to be quoted as WP:RS in the same way that the observations of journalists such as Barbie Nadeau are quoted now. I understand the position that it is the source and not a person that is considered WP:RS and I dont suggest changing that, only that we start by agreeing that Mr Moore is in fact an expert witness. The "Go-To" arguements that have been used regularly for months to restrict use of Moore's statements, i.e. that "Steve Moore" is actually an internet construct; that his work is only found on a single Knox advocacy website; that his bonafides cannot be established as he has not published books or articles in the way an academic would, have clearly been overcome by his recent national news exposure. In the interest of creating a fair and balanced article which seeks to genuinely educate the reader rather than leading them to a predetermined conclusion I respectfully request that we move to consensus on this general concept. Tjholme (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• By its very nature, someone's opinion can never be a reliable source - it can only ever be their opinion, and be quoted as such - i.e. "Smith claimed that X was the case". For anything contentious, it certainly cannot be used as a single source. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that opinion is opinion, and should be stated as such. However, inclusion of 'opinion' has been regularly rejected because it is not objective "fact" published in a recognized WP:RS. My point is not that a carte blanche should exist for all Steve Moore statements to be quoted wantonly in the WoMk article, but rather that we agree that Moore does represent an Expert Opinion and his statements viewed and considered in that light, at least in so far as explaining the significance of evidence that was or was not collected as well as the investigative procedures and methods used.Tjholme (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but as in the previous discussions (now in the archive) the problems with Moore are twofold. Firstly, his findings are presented on a website whose banner headline is "A website detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox". Now this wouldn't be an issue in itself, subject to the above caveats, but as mentioned before, a lot of Moore's testimony is speculation - "Amanda did not bring up the name Patrick Lumumba. The police did. And they repeatedly told her to “imagine” Patrick and herself being at the cottage that night.", or "the reason they interrogated Amanda all night was to break her. Not get the truth, not get answers, not make Perugia safer; but to break her so that she would say what they wanted her to say". (Source: [3]). Now this is speculation at best, at worst it is fiction. As was discussed earlier, we don't do fiction; we may include opinion, but it would have to be an opinion that clearly wasn't one person's view on what happened that night. Previous consensus is that it's unreliable; I have to agree with that. Obviously, we are able to report Moore's views; but they must be countered by an opposing view that this is complete speculation. Otherwise Wikipedia itself could end up in legal problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "we don't do fiction," I can assure you, as someone who has more complete information than the reporters who covered this case, that you've got some fiction going in this article, reliably sourced though it may be. I'm not sure how to fix that within the parameters of WP policies, but I'd like to see it happen.Charlie wilkes (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie, if you think you are better informed than the secondary sources, you are likely to have a very frustrating time at Wikipedia! You will no doubt have seen that Wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary rather than primary sources and that both original research and synthesis of sources are not permitted. The insistence that verifiability is more important than truth can also be very difficult to live with. Plus there is the fact that everything must be achieved by consensus, which means that we all have to make compromises and this is probably most painful for the people who regard themselves as the most expert. Personally, I generally avoid editing articles on subjects where I might be considered an expert in real life, and I never go near articles whose subjects I care about passionately! By the way, I'm not trying to offer you advice here, just making some observations from my own experience. Bluewave (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any factual inaccuracies in the article; if they are obviously wrong, I or another admin will fix them. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. To my mind, there is a kind of Orwellian weirdness in the concept of avoiding articles on subjects where you might be considered an expert. Maybe I should ditch this article and focus on cold fusion, or Madagascar, or cerebral hemorrhaging, or some other subject that is completely outside my field of knowledge.

I'm trying to figure out how I can contribute. I'm not a neutral source, but I do have a lot of accurate information. For example, Knox's DNA was not found mixed with the victim's blood in any footprints, even though reliable sources have said so. The fact pattern is as follows:

Four latent bare footprints were found and tested for DNA. None revealed the victim's DNA, which strongly undermines the claim that they were made with the victim's blood. Moreover, a sensitive blood test was performed on all of these prints, and the result was negative in every case.

One latent shoe print, in the corridor, revealed Knox's DNA mixed with the victim's DNA, but again, the blood test was negative. The blood tests were also negative in Filomena's room, where Knox's DNA was found mixed with the victim's DNA in a luminol reaction that covered a large area and had no shape.

The following is on the FOA site:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/selected_dna_results.pdf

I prepared this digest myself from the DNA test results produced by Italy's Polizia Scientifica, which I have and can provide. I understand that it's not a reliable source, but perhaps it could be used to benchmark the accuracy of some of the article content taken from other sources that are deemed reliable.Charlie wilkes (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Committal hearings

This statement in the article does not appear to be supported by the Telegraph article used as a reference.[4]

"From a detailed analysis of bloodstains in the flat, and the cuts and bruises sustained by Kercher, Micheli concluded that Kercher had been sexually assaulted and then murdered by multiple attackers."

All the Telegraph reference has to say on the subject is:

"But he did say that there was enough evidence to suggest that Miss Kercher had been killed by more than one person ...".

We need to change the statement or change the reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks supported by me. I don't think there is much of a difference between a judge concluding something on the one hand and concluding that the evidence supports something on the other. Or am I misidentifying the hair you are splitting? --FormerIP (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between evidence to suggest and conclusive evidence. The article also doesn't say anything about a detailed analysis of bloodstains, cuts and bruises. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's true, so I would support the removal of the part up to "...sustained by Kercher". --FormerIP (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the first clause, so that the sentence reads

"Micheli concluded that Kercher had been sexually assaulted and then murdered by multiple attackers"

 pablo 11:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I will go along with this change. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclude: If no citation for the first part in question will be provided ASAP it should go. If someone finds a source (for this part) at some point it still can be re-added. If there is no objection I'll go ahead and place an edit request soon unless somebody beats me to it.TMCk (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Remove the following text from the Committal hearings section: "From a detailed analysis of bloodstains in the flat, and the cuts and bruises sustained by Kercher,"

As supported by the discussion preceding this request. --Footwarrior (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Extradition

Currently there is a 'citation needed' tag at the end of the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" section, following the sentence

"He was extradited to Italy on 6 December 2007"

This link indicates that he was held in Frankfurt until the 5th and had been extradited by the 6th. I suggest adding

<ref name="Truscott06Dec2007">{{cite news
 |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/world.italy
 |title=Germans extradite Kercher murder suspect
 |last=Truscott
 |first=Claire
 |date=6 December 2007
 |work=The Guardian
 |accessdate=5 September 2010}}</ref>

to replace the {{cn}} tag. Does the sentence need to be reworded? It does not explicitly state that extradition happened on the 6th.  pablo 15:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually this one has "was today extradited from Germany to Italy":

<ref name="Pisa06Dec2007">{{cite news
 |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1571739/Meredith-Kercher-suspect-extradited-to-Italy.html
 |title=Meredith Kercher suspect extradited to Italy
 |last=Pisa
 |first=Nick
 |date=6 December 2007
 |work=The Telegraph
 |accessdate=5 September 2010}}</ref>

so is a better source for the sentence as it stands.  pablo 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether he was extradited on the 5th or the 6th is irrelevant. PhanuelB (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled. But a citation is needed; the article states a specific date therefore it seems to me that the citation given should back it up.  pablo 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} This seems to be uncontroversial. Please add the reference above, named "Pisa06Dec2007", to the end of the sentence "He was extradited to Italy on 6 December 2007" in the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" section, removing the {{citation needed}} tag.  pablo 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done without consensus.PhanuelB (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What argument exists against performing an action as minor, albeit useful, as backing up information with a reference so as to deal with a "citation needed" tag? No long-winded debate to ascertain consensus is required for such a simple and uncontroversial change. Repeated objections that are not supported with reasoning are not constructive. SuperMarioMan 02:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is burdened with large amounts of irrelevant material and unnecessary detail. The are also issues of WP:OWNERSHIP here. PhanuelB (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that many editors would agree that it would be good to prune the article. Easier said than done, of course: so where, specifically, would you begin? Why not make a clear and simple proposal? Ian Spackman (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have made many specific proposals -- including ones that replace longer paragraphs with shorter ones. There is no requirement to make changes word by word. The sweeping changes I generally come up with are legitimate and exactly what this biased and troubled article needs. As pointed out by roughly half the editors here, this article has a POV totally different from what the large majority of reliable sources are saying. My proposed changes have been improperly removed from this talk page and the archives appear to have been manipulated to alter the editing history of the page in a way that benefits one point of view. PhanuelB (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sweeping changes are not going to happen in the short to medium term: you have been around long enough to recognise that. If you have practical and precise suggestions, appropriately sourced, as to how the article can be improved, now, then make them. Otherwise I would suggest devoting your energies elsewhere. This talk page is intended as a means rather directly to improve the article. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Locking of article

Why has this article been locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarvardMan2000 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Because of long-running arguments about the content, and concerns about the number of new accounts turning up to edit it. It's common practice to protect controversial articles in this manner. Any changes you suggest should be posted here for discussion first.  pablo 19:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be unlocked so that everyone can participate equally. No one side of the content dispute should be taking control of the article like this. The abuse going on here is obvious. HarvardMan2000 (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can request that the page be unprotected here. Your analysis that the protection is leading to "one side of the content dispute ... taking control" is bizarre given that you didn't know the reasons for the page being protected. The accusation of abuse is out of line.  pablo 20:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The admins made the decision unilaterally at a time when the article needs to be brought up to date. I'm not sure the article is right for blocking at this time. I think it is an administrative overstep to block and it reads as undemocratic policing rather than hands-off administering by disinterested admins. The decision is suspect. But as well, if the article is locked, sections should not be collapsed on the Talk Page. The discussion (in the now collapsed section - see above) was heading in a well-reasoned, production direction. Not run by emotion, but care and consideration. The collapsing of that due to claims of "emotion" reenforcing the concerns about the article getting locked. Perk10 (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Brought up to date in what way exactly? The murder and the trials were some time ago. The appeals have not started yet.  pablo 21:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If the article needs to be "brought up to date" then make an {{editprotected}} request explaining what changes you believe need to be made, at the bottom of this page, and it can be discussed. The whole point of protecting the article is that any change can be discussed before being actioned. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get back to work. 23:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs)

My point was a larger point. I am not talking about the block per se. Just the general tone of the admins working on the article. I'm not trying to convince the admins; I am mentioning it for users in general. Perk10 (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What new information do you have, or recommendations for changing the article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue is with the potential "gaming" of the admins via being prohibitive and policing rather than administering. I have suggestions for the article - tightening it, subtractions, additions. After making this point, I hope to get to those kinds of edits. The Talk Page seems like the "approval" page (of admins) rather than discussion amongst a general group. It seems like admins v. the rest. That's a red flag. Perk10 (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

One important job the admins have is to prevent edit-warring, and this one has been an edit-warring magnet for single-purpose users who want to use wikipedia as a vehicle to promote their cause. That is not wikipedia's purpose, and the admins were right to lock it down. You are free to make any suggestions you want that will improve the article, and if they are properly sourced, they could be considered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the block only but the entire program of the admins. They are operating to promote a point of view and to protect the article from certain information. This is against Wikipedia rules. It is called "Gaming the System". Perk10 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

And your constant baseless allegations are called personal attacks and harassment. I suggest you stop this. Now. MLauba ^(Talk) 14:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"...they could be considered."  ? This is not a space to submit suggestions to editors. This is a community page where discussion is what gets decisions made, not approval. Perk10 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

They are not personal at all. They are observations. Please see Gaming the System. I can get the link. Perk10 (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am bringing it up for the users in general to consider. Perk10 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

This most certainly is the place to submit suggestions, Perk. That is the entire point of the talk namespace, and any time an article is locked due to edit warring/POV pushing and the like, becomes the place to discuss proposed changes. So, by all means, propose your changes here. Resolute 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Perk10 (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

But I want to bring up that the style of Wikipedia is not submit - approve, but suggest - discuss. Perk10 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

That is exactly what has been happening here. So what changes do you suggest be made to the article? Do you have any changes to the article that you would like to discuss?  pablo 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's not complicated. If changes actually get proposed and discussed, they make it into the article. And if I get to see a couple of consecutive days where every participant on this talk page actually does nothing but discuss contributions instead of contributors, perceived slights, assumed agendas, imagined motives or sinister plans, I'll unprotect the article myself. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to move onto edits of the article. I just want to point out that the comments are not about contributors themselves, but actions. That said, onto the actual editing. Perk10 (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

So, should we assume you have no specific edits to recommend at this point? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• cough* The invitation to cut the sniping is valid for everyone. Let everyone contribute at their pace (and ideally in a new section). MLauba ^(Talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got a suspicion you don't know why I'm asking that question. In any case, the page remains locked, as it should be for now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

>>Baseball Bugs said... "So, should we assume you have no specific edits to recommend at this point?"

I do have edits but I was resolving this tangent first. I don't think an article such as this should be rushed to final piece. Most of my initial concerns are with grammar, syntax, and tightening of the article. It is hard for me personally to focus on content when those things seem to need red ink. Perk10 (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I also find the Talk Page a little chaotic and initially was only inclined to edit specific, focused edits on the article. Whether the article was deemed "Protected" for a valid reason or not, hopefully editing won't be cumbersome using the alternate method of discussing first. It seems potentially awkward. Presumably, it is a workable process/method that sounds more awkward than it is. Perk10 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you won't know unless you give it a try.  pablo 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. That was my point. But also to ask if anyone else finds the Talk Page to be chaotic. I don't even know where to submit the changes right now. Black Kite said to do so with a certain demarkation but not where. Or it has changed as to where since he/she first said how to mark proposed changes. I'll figure it out. Perk10 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, see this section for a simple example. Start a new section, propose your change, see what others have to say. They may suggest modification so your proposal. If and when there is agreement, you can use a {{editprotected}} template to draw the attention of an administrator.  pablo 21:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal Initial Request for Unlock and Request for Consensus

The instructions say that a request for unlock should be made first to the locking administrator(s), who appear to be Black Kite and MLauba. Accordingly, I hereby ask them to unlock the article. I have no illusions that they will comply with this request. However, this initial step is a requirement, before proceeding to the official page for submitting an unlock request.

I would like to know how other editors feel about this lock. Is there consensus here for this lock on the article? Whether or not there is consensus for the lock should be a factor in any decision as to locking an article.

Can we get some tally here as to the support for or the opposition to this lock?

Please state:

• 1) Do you support or not support this lock?
• 2) Please explain your rationale for your position.
• 3) If a lock is to be implemented, please state the appropriate length of time for the lock, and your rationale for your suggested time frame.

HarvardMan2000 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(Comment edited by HarvardMan2000 at 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC) [5]. TMCk (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC))

• I do not support this lock. It obstructs and discourages participation by the editors. If a lock is to be imposed, it should be only for a short while, such as a few days, and not the present one month lock (which could even be extended). HarvardMan2000 (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• This article should never have been blocked.PhanuelB (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• The page lock which was endorsed by another admin should stay in place. Any consensus edit can be made by placing the {{editprotected}} template.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The decision to lock the page was presumably based on the judgement of the admins involved, not any consensus of editors. However, I would support the block, too. As TMCk says, it doesn't stop us making consensus edits. It also has the advantage of avoiding our wasting our time in edit wars and other unproductive editing. Bluewave (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The exchange below this one demonstrates exactly why the page is protected. If that type of exchange is to be typical of a minor grammar change, the page probably ought to stay protected indefinitely. Regardless, the requirement for changes to be fed through editprotected request ensures that no disruption such as edit-warring can take place. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Very big ditto from my side.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

...and I would vote to keep the lock until after the appeals have finished. The reason being that there is a big risk of "helpful" people adding daily updates with whatever is reported from the appeals court. The result is likely to be a complete dog's breakfast of conflicting reports. Bluewave (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article will certainly have to be protected during the appeals. A quick look at this page during the period when there is no new content to be added will verify that. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Repost of Bluewave's comment after an attempt of refactoring an existing discussion (now reverted). MLauba ^(Talk) 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, what's happening here. A request for a tally on people's views has suddenly become a more formal-looking VOTING SECTION. And some of the comments have been moved about so that Black Kite's response to my comment is no longer anywhere near it! Could I respectfully ask HarvardMan to put things back where he found them? Bluewave (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Harvardman2000, fair warning. Try refactoring an on-going discussion again in this manner and you'll find your editing privileges suspended indefinitely. MLauba ^(Talk) 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Endorse ongoing lock. This article has been a battleground for months, with constant updates for whatever minutae of the day POV editors on both sides have seen fit to add. This is a better article as a locked article. Townlake (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1. I do support the protection.
2. Everyone is able to contribute; discussion happens before the edit is made on a protected page; that is clearly a better method here. the bonkers refactoring of even the talk page confirms belief that protection is the way to go.
3. I do not have a timeframe, but sometime after the appeals have been heard and ajudiciated seems sensible.  pablo 20:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

MLauba, I was simply trying to make things tidy and clear so that others can figure out what is going on in this section. The comments and the voting are becoming a blurry mess. This is dysfunctional. On a going forward basis, I would like to see things more organized, neat, tidy and efficient. So I will add this new section below, so that hopefully there can be an actual vote/tally that actually reflects how the editors feel about this lockdown. I will now close off this section, for purposes of providing additional clarity. So please ignore this section, and start fresh with this new voting section below. It is imperative that votes and comments be kept separate. Much obliged.HarvardMan2000 (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oh do stop it. How many sections are necessary for this?  pablo 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Voting is not how things are done here; it is done by discussion and consensus. See WP:DEMOCRACY. Please continue the discussion below, I have removed the "voting" sections. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Do you support or not support this lock? I do not support the lock. 2) Please explain your rationale for your position. The article has many problems that need to be fixed. We should just work on making it better. 3) If a lock is to be implemented, please state the appropriate length of time for the lock, and your rationale for your suggested time frame. One week should be enough time to cool down and step back.Jaberryhill (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the week before the article protection there were 70 edits to the article. Over 20 of those were reversions or partial reversions of previous edits. This is a waste of editors time, leads to an uncollegial editing environment and inevitably leads to a less useful article. If the article were to be unprotected now, the likelihood is that the same will happen and inevitably the article will be locked again. What is needed is for an extended period of discussion to take place of edits that are to be made. At least with the protection in place it is a requirement that discussion takes place. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The article should be unlocked. I saw no edit war or other justification for it to be locked. Locking it appears to be an attempt to discourage and intimidate new editors and preserve what I think is justifiability perceived as a biased POV. Kermugin (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

New editors are welcome even if they carry a biased POV with them as long as they manage to keep the very same out of an article and the correspondence talkpage and don't make unfounded accusations against their fellow editors without any kind of proof whatsoever. The latter is a non constructive "poison the well" attitude which doesn't serve a healthy discussion environment. But I guess I'm talking to a wall of brigs and therefore will try to ignore any nonconstructive comment as I did before most of the time. And yes, the article should be kept locked. Good arguments where made in support of it.TMCk (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The allegation of "unfounded accusations" without "any kind of proof whatsoever" is false. Please provide an example.PhanuelB (talk) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. My comment is based on the above one which you seem not to have read. What is your comment based on?TMCk (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to PhanuelB's call for an example, edits such as this offer a good representation of all that is wrong with the general editing atmosphere at this article and its associated talk page. As more of an outside observer, I wholeheartedly endorse the arguments of Black Kite, Bluewave, TMCk and others on the issue of full protection — such intense debate on the rather trivial point of grammatical correctness leaves arguments for lifting the restriction rather weak. The page should remain protected during the appeals process. SuperMarioMan 02:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(redacted personal attack)

Can we stop with the "this article is pro-guilt" nonsense? It is only "pro-guilt" in the sense of reporting the fact that these three people have been tried for various crimes and found guilty by the court. That is a matter of fact, not opinion or point-of-view, and it does not make the article "pro-guilt" to report that fact.  pablo 09:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Newcomers are always welcome. However, when you have a very large number of newcomers, all created recently, all editing mostly or completely on a single article, all with seemingly the same POV on the subject, and some perfectly happy to throw around unsupported personal attacks like yours, then guess what? People are suspicious. And you really need to internalize the fact that someone who does not agree with you on this article is not "pro-guilt". Merely because someone disagrees with your "pro-innocence" POV does not automatically mean this - there is space in the middle for neutrality. I (and I dare say the same for MLauba), will not stand for being attacked by you because we are trying to uphold Wikipedia policy. If it had not been a personal on myself I would have blocked you straight away. You seriously need to think about your conduct here. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The allegation of "unfounded accusations" without "any kind of proof whatsoever" is false. Please provide an example.PhanuelB (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This talkpage is littered with examples of editors being called biased and "pro-guilt" - oh look, just like PietroLegno's post just a few lines above this one. There's your example. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See here where Black Kite and MLauba are concerned that the length of this page's edit block extend beyond the upcoming appeals. Every indication is that this is a clear attempt to influence current events by enforcing a specific non-neutral POV in this article. The words were "any kind of proof whatsoever" and that burden has been met. PhanuelB (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1) I support the lock. 2) The lock is an effective way of dealing with edit-warring and POV pushing and preventing further deterioration of the article. There is a legitimate concern about the number of SPAs gathering here and their number seems to be increasing since the lock. 3) The lock should be undone when we can be reasonably confident that edit-warring and POV-pushing will not continue. It would seem a good idea to keep it in place during the forthcoming appeals process. This will not prevent the article being appropriately updated, but it will reduce the chaos. --FormerIP (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In response to PhanuelB: where is the proof that "a specific non-neutral POV" is being "enforced"? The header template states firmly that "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version" — the actual justification is the disproportionate number of reverts to constructive edits. To repeat blind claims about alleged cabalism without substantiation does not lend more credence to such blind claims. It does, however, indicate a staunch refusal to get the point. SuperMarioMan 18:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The section below titled "Insertion of Neutrality Disputed Banner" is also a good example of why the article needs to stay protected for awhile, to slam the door on edit-warring. There are a number of editors who want to use a number of wikipedia articles as vehicles to try to make a case for something, and this article is one of those. That is not wikipedia's purpose. If there is any actual new and reliable information, that can be discussed here, and action can be taken to insert it if appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I support REMOVING the lock precisely because this article IS so contentious. If it weren't so then this discussion page would be a stub and the only changes likely would be from vandals. Locking the page makes sense under those conditions. However, as it is, the keys to the kingdom (or at least this small part of it) are all held by a few editors that appear to share as a common agenda the goal of maintaining the established article as is, allowing only the most minor changes. Supermarioman asked for proof of specific non-neutral-POV. I suggest he reads the "Arrest of Rudy Guede" discussion. One need look no further than the way the description of Guede's Tramantano burglary (through a window armed with a knife) got changed to "entered the home uninvited" to see what certainly appears to be an intentional downplaying of the seriousness of the act. A number of similar examples exist. However, when this issue comes up it is generally dismissed out of had by the keepers of the keys. Worse, certain editors have even suggested that to make this observation amounts to a personal attack and may result in BANNING. So long as only a few hold the power to present the story in the light they choose the article will never be the unbiased encyclopedic work that all claim to want. Tjholme (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's only contentious because of certain editors trying to use the article to push a personal agenda. If you have any reliably-sourced new information, you are free to post it here and it can be discussed for appropriateness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh lordy. "Guede's Tramontano burglary" eh? Please please show us all for once and for all where Guede was accused, arrested, tried, sentenced for this heinous crime. The allegation was made after the fact, after Tramontano saw his picture in the newspaper and thought he might be the guy. Please stop.  pablo 22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Section "Rudy Guede" - minor change proposed

Right now it reads: "A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

From an encyclopedic standpoint "has" should be replaced with "had" in this sentence to read: "A bartender had also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan had claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

Can we go ahead with this uncontroversial edit?TMCk (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

no consensus.PhanuelB (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have no argument to make don't edit.TMCk (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The problems with that sentence have been clearly defined.PhanuelB (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you please explain yourself more clearly? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

How many does it take to change it?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Since the article is locked and the subject contentious I would say one or two more editors in favor should do it for a minor grammar change.TMCk (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not support this change. The present tense is necessary in this sentence. The testimony is not past tense, since the testimony is still viable and available and part of the ongoing procedure. The past tense should not be used until the issues connected with this testimony are resolved. HarvardMan2000 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You're aware that the testimony was made in the past and changing the grammar just makes it more encyclopedic w/o implying (the testimony) to be void. So I'm really not sure what you're objection is.TMCk (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rudy's conviction is in the past. Since this section is about him and his conviction, past-tense is relevant. But beyond that, TMCK is right. This is a very minor grammar change that makes the article read in a more encyclopedic way. It really shouldn't be generating this much disagreement.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm very surprised that even a minor grammar correction is objected by one editor [I don't count editors that don't provide an argument]. Maybe I should just place an edit request and leave it to the admin to judge if this can really be count as a content issue/dispute or not. Still, I hope for at least one more qualified comment before I'll ask for that tiny little change to be made.TMCk (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It is just grammar, not content. I don't see where grammar needs a consensus.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention, that with this kind of contention, I think this page should stay locked for a while longer. If there's a consensus needed for that, please count me in.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed for a "lock down" but it certainly helps admins reach a decision. I plan on placing an edit request today and leave it to the uninvolved admin to decide as I mentioned above.TMCk (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} At the proceeding admin's discretion: It is proposed to change the word "has" to "had" as laid out above (at the top of this thread).TMCk (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator, please note that there is no consensus for this change that TMCk is requesting. Please see discussion above. The proposed change is not merely a non-controversial grammatical correction. The concerns expressed are that the change alters the sense/meaning/significance of the sentence concerning crucial trial testimony. Without consensus, this change should not be made. HarvardMan2000 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Obviously PhanuelB's opposition can be disregarded straightaway. However HarvardMan2000 makes valid points, and may even be correct. If you cannot sort this out between yourselves, posing the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language will likely get you a quick answer to this! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having arrived late on the scene, I'm totally baffled at all the controversy over what I thought was a minor, non-controversial grammatical improvement. Bluewave (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is quite a kerfuffle over not much, but I suppose that the tense of "had also alleged" implies that the allegation occurred before another event.

Guede had no criminal record at the time of the murder.[14] A defence witness in the Knox and Sollecito trial said that Guede told him of having been caught by police with a laptop and cell phone stolen from the witness's office, but Guede claimed that he had purchased these items at the Milan train station.[15] A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises.[16]

If "had" is used then perhaps the paragraph does need rewriting to make it clear what the 'other event' in question is; the murder? The Knox/Sollecito trial?

"Has alleged" is not present tense, as HarvardMan claims; neither does the tense of this paragraph affect the currency of the allegation. The allegation was made in the past. Use of has/had depends only on whether we want to reference the time the allegation was made to other events.  pablo 08:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The context is the sentence about the trial, which is written in simple past tense: A defence witness in the Knox and Sollecito trial said... The following sentence (A bartender has also alleged...) is currently written in the perfect tense which surely implies that it is a more recent event than what has just been described (events at the trial). The proposal is to put it into the pluperfect tense, which implies that the bartender's allegations were earlier than the trial. Looking at the source for this (the Daily Mail article) it appears to be talking about allegations made before the trial, so I think the pluperfect "had" most accurately reflects what is citable from the source. Bluewave (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  pablo 10:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and Bluewave I'm most impressed with your command of grammar. I suggest we make another run at getting this changed.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done without conensus. PhanuelB (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(irrelevant content redacted)

• And again: Would you please stop hijacking this thread which is about a minor grammar change and address the issue and purpose of this thread? Spreading arround soap all over the talkpage which is nowwhere near to be seen as an effort to improve the article doesn't help neither the article nor your cause and therefore doesn't belong on this page.TMCk (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I've removed it. Phanuel, if you want to keep on presenting your "preferred" versions of the article, don't do it in the middle of a conversation about something else. Either create a new section or preferably, do it in your own userspace and then link to it. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Double standard. If I and others use the word "hijack" we get blocked.PhanuelB (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Phanuel, your definition of "hijack" is anyone making changes to the article that you don't agree with. Please don't start wikilawyering on top of everything else, it's really not a good idea. You've been informed how to contribute constructively; please do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Improper Archiving by Misabot

This Diff was improperly archived. It's supposed to be no change for 7 days.

In addition there appears to have been alteration of archives 25 and 26 in a way that misrepresents the history of the threads.PhanuelB (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

see here. Archives 25 and 26 have been altered how?  pablo 14:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OMG. The bot must be a "guilter".TMCk (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 26 should have the criticism section that I authored. I would appreciate it if whoever did that would identify themselves. PhanuelB (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot (a program/software that was designed to archive talk pages) did this and there is no apparent flaw to be seen. It (the bot) worked just fine as it supposed to.TMCk (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to archive threads that have not been edited in the last 7 days. It archived content that had been edited 4 days earlier. The discrepancy between archive 25 and 26 appears to be the result of human intervention.PhanuelB (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

see here, again. Your edit on 1 September was not timestamped. The bot is working correctly.  pablo 15:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. The bot works by analysing timestamps; since you didn't timestamp that post, the bot assumed the previous post was the latest. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Guede’s appeal to the Court of Cassation

The hearing has been fixed – perfect passive: does that imply an inappropriate POV? – for 16 December 2010. Is that worth adding to the section Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Appeal? Source: ‘Meredith: ricorso Guede in Cassazione 16: Difesa chiede assoluzione ivoriano’, ANSA news agency (Perugia, 27 August 2010, 20:15). [Probably not the recommended citation format for news agencies, but I can’t make out what that is.]

On a related point, it would be worth wikilinking at its first appearance ‘Court of Cassation’ to Court of Cassation (Italy). Ian Spackman (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree on both points; Guede's forthcoming appeal is noteworthy. I suggest

<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/cronaca/2010/08/27/visualizza_new.html_1789792942.html
|title=Meredith:ricorso Guede in Cassazione 16: Difesa chiede assoluzione ivoriano
|date=27 August 2010
|publisher=ansa.it
|accessdate=6 September 2010
|location=perugia}}</ref>

for the reference, and and Court of Cassation should be linked as Ian suggests.  pablo 21:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I also agree on both points. Bluewave (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the absence of opposition, would an admin:

1. Please wikilink at its first appearance ‘Court of Cassation’ to Court of Cassation (Italy)
2. Please change:

In May 2010, Guede launched a second and final appeal to the Court of Cassation.

to:

In May 2010, Guede launched a second and final appeal to the Court of Cassation; the hearing was subsequently fixed for 16 December 2010.

Ian Spackman (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Insertion of Neutrality Disputed Banner

This article needs a Neutrality Disputed Banner.PhanuelB (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you did add one previously so I suppose we're at the 'D' stage of BRD. Please therefore give an example of non-neutral content in the current article, so it can be discussed.  pablo 14:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I did put together a criticism section which pretty well defined what I think should go in. You can say it's too long but you can't say I haven't said what's wrong with the article. There are some issues with what's in the article, but the real complaint is with what's not in. The article does not discuss (1) the criticism of the trial by US television commentators; (2) Guede's bad acts prior to the murder and why -- as argued by AK and RS lawyers -- they make it more likely that he acted alone; (3) The criticism of Mignini, including actions in other cases that relate to this one; and (4) influence of European tabloids on the trial among other things. All of this is specifically discussed by reliable sources. The article now argues for guilt; a substantial majority of reliable sources say innocence or flawed process so there's a real problem. I don't understand how anyone can say that the neutrality of this article isn't under dispute by about half of the editors here. PhanuelB (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Various US television commentators and their relative positions are mentioned. We do not need to mention everyone who has commented on this case, whatever their view.
2. That Guede is alleged to have committed 'bad acts' is mentioned in the article. Speculation on what he might have been more or less likely to do in the light of these allegations is inappropriate
3. I think you've floated that one about a dozen times already; the relevance is not apparent to this case.
4. You would need to show that European tabloids actually had any influence on the case.

The article does not argue for guilt, it reports the guilty verdicts, as it should; they are a matter of record.  pablo 15:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd also say that point 4 is covered in the part that reads: According to Knox's lawyers, family and some media, the pretrial publicity tainted the public perception of Knox and may have prejudiced the trial.[116][117] The lawyers filed complaints with a Milan court and with Italy's privacy watchdog.[116] Bluewave (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And regarding point 3, the article currently says Since the trial, Mignini has been convicted of "abuse of office" and sentenced to 16 months in prison by a Florence court for tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved Monster of Florence case. He has protested his innocence, and remains in office, pending an appeal.[89] You might think this could be improved but I disagree with your assertion that the article doesn't discuss Mignini's conduct in other cases. Bluewave (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On (2), it is also the case that, according to the trial report, of the three alleged crimes committed by Guede: the identification of Guede was uncertain in one case; there was no allegation of a crime in another case; there was no acual break-in in the third case. The argument of K&S's lawyers was not that these allegations directly increased the likelihood of G's guily, but that they showed a similar modus operandi to the fake break-in at the crime scene. The report rejects this argument, showing that there are not similarities between the faked break-in and the alleged crimes. I'm not saying this information should necessarily go in the article, but if there is an NPOV issue here, surely it is against Guede?

Anyway, Phanuel, I would say that it is not appropriate to tag the article simply on the basis that you have text-walled an unsourced alternative to the current content and other editors have failed to endorse it. --FormerIP (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Déjà vu. Repeating the same argument over and over won't get a NPOV-tag placed.TMCk (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Having just read this article for the first time, I am not buying the need for an NPOV tag. Specific to your four arguments Phaneul: #s 1 and 2 are clearly false, as I easily found discussion of criticism (along with support) of the trial from the US media and of Guede's alleged "bad acts". I would say that both are currently presented in a balanced fashion. Likewise on argument #4, the allegation that early publicity of the case might have prejudiced the trial is also mentioned. On #3, I'd have to see evidence that criticism of the prosecutor related to other cases is relevant to this article. All told, I think this article does a fair job of presenting both the evidence against the three convicted, the evidence submitted in defence (especially of Knox) and the campaigns by various parties involved in the case. Given all of the arguing about this article that I've seen on ANI, I'd say this article is far more neutral than I was expecting coming in. Resolute 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolute: I'm a little busy now -- been doing WAY too much of this at work. The claim is that a "substantial majority of reliable sources say innocent or flawed process." Example: article says Judy Bachrach but doesn't say what she said. Judy Bachrach called this a "kangaroo court" on Larry King Live which was broadcast to much of English speaking world. She called the prosecutor "famously incompetent." This is just the tip of the iceberg. New neutral admins are what this page needs, but don't make any conclusions until you've heard both sides.PhanuelB (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a big claim; I would have thought that a substantial majority of the reliable sources in the world would either have just reported the facts of the trial or ignored it altogether rather than offer an opinion.  pablo 20:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that a "substantial majority of reliable sources say innocent or flawed process" requires sourcing to reliable sources. If this is your own conclusion, you're infringing on WP:OR. My assessment of the media coverage section is that it leans slightly towards defence of Knox/criticism of the court, and I would say as such that it is a balanced section. We don't need to litter it with quotes by every media type who has voiced an opinion. That said, if it was felt a need to include a short quote from someone like Bachrach, I would think it also prudent to add a short quote from an American media type who has come out in support of the decision as well. Resolute 21:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if I have a problem with that section, it would be the lack of a note on how Italian media have portrayed the trial. We obviously have American and British, but why not the country where the trial took place? Resolute 21:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to quote someone, please, please, choose someone slightly better informed than Bachrach! She is the person who claimed that, in Italy, "the ordinary person is considered guilty until proven innocent" and that "Italy's laws are direct descendants of the Inquisition"![6] Bluewave (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK Resolute. Here's point 1 of many. Judy Bachrach was chosen as a commentator on the case by a major news organization, CNN. That's a pretty credible source. This was not a case of the network contacting one side and letting them provide a spokesperson as sometimes happens with Ann Bremner (never presented as a reliable source by me.) I was previously blocked for saying that reliable sources are being rejected here because they have a POV that some editors don't like. A number of others editors have said precisely the same thing. Judy Bachrach did say that in Italy you're "guilty until proven innocent." It doesn't mean that she's not a reliable source because she said that; it means a realiable source said it whether any of the editors like it or not. Anna Momigliano said much the same thing in Foreign Policy Magazine. They don't like Doug Preston. They don't like Paul Ciolino. The don't like John Q. Kelly. They don't like Steve Moore and implied he was an imposter. A CBS documentary nominated for an Emmy Award is "self publised" and "blogosphere."PhanuelB (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You still refuse to get it. The "balloon hoax boy" case was also covered on CNN and the family appeared more than ones on that channel. Does it make them a RS? Hardly. So please stop with "But that person appeared on a TV news channel" as it doesn't make them suddenly a RS. It's only a person's opinion regardless if on a blog or news-channel and can only be treated as such where wp:undue and therefore consensus as to how much weight is applied plays a major role.TMCk (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it really your contention that Judy Bachrach, Anna Momigliano, Doug Preston, Paul Ciolino, John Q. Kelly and Steve Moore constitute a "substantial majority of reliable sources"?  pablo 22:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one asking you to justify Bachrach's opinions as being worthy of inclusion. (Though I must say that if a large majority of the US media shares her opinions that you would have no problems whatsoever to find another media person that all sides could accept who has shared similar positions.) I am stating that, in my opinion, the section is already neutral. As such, if you wish to add to one side only, you stand a high risk of introducing your POV. The paragraph on British reaction includes quotes from both sides of the debate. It seems fair to me that if you wish to use a quote from someone who represents the "Knox is innocent" POV in the US media, then it is necessary to also quote someone representative of the other side as well. So, please tell me, who in your estimation best represents the other POV of this debate? Resolute 23:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

WP:ANI#Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am now watching this article and its talk page as a result of the AN/I report. --John (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, John. I wanted to post on AN/I but when I got to it there seemed to be plenty of commentary. I just wanted to say I think the admins here have done an excellent job quieting the riot and I hope they'll continue and not be discouraged in anyway.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Phanuel would have been less combative if he was shown a little respect. IMO, he was unfairly ridiculed. Were some people deliberately baiting and goading him into an attack? He wanted to talk about the controversy and the issues that have been raised questioning the fairness of the trial. But his well-researched and documented sources were immediately denounced as not reliable. Some seemed to demand that sources show proof of whether the allegations were accurate - an impossible standard. His point, I believe, was that numerous knowledgeable and credible people have raised serious questions. The sources seemed perfectly valid for that purpose.

One person even went so far as to claim The case is not "notable because of controversy"; and insist the only controversy was localized in Seattle. Oh, please! How many murder cases and trials result in multiple books and documentaries and thousands upon thousands of bogs and posts from all over the world? Not notable because of controversy? How could anyone say that and expect to be taken seriously?

I’ve not tried to do a lot of editing because I don’t consider myself an expert but even I can see obvious errors and apparent bias.

Example1: (referring to the LCN DNA test) “In this case, it was used because the police believed that the knife had been cleaned with bleach, leaving only microscopic traces of Kercher's DNA.[30] “ Synthesis of information and assumption leading to a false statement. (Cops smelled bleach and picked out a clean-looking knife.) The cited article doesn’t even mention LCN. Obviously, the LCN DNA test was attempted because the sub-microscopic speck of material was unidentifiable using conventional DNA testing. What did that have to do with what the cops believed about how the knife was cleaned? And besides, it should say: “only microscopic traces of something suspected to be Kercher's DNA”

Example 2: On 5 November 2007, Sollecito made a statement in which he said that he was not sure that Knox had been with him on the night of the murder. Why was this selected to represent everything Sollecito told police? Was it his initial statement? Can the average reader look at the date and know it was not? We read about Knox’s claims of mistreatment and coercion, but what about Sollecito. How much coercion did he suffer before this statement? Did he only admit that since he wasn’t awake all night, he technically couldn’t know if Knox was there the whole time? Was this the only reference the editor could find to Sollecito’s statements or was it cherry-picked to suggest that Knox was lying and therefore guilty? Either way, it could be construed to constitute bias whether deliberate or not.

If we really want an accurate and NPOV article, we need people who have an intimate knowledge of the case (and the resources to document it) in order to ferret out and correct problems. PhanuelB could be a valuable asset in that regard. Don’t get me wrong; neither he nor anyone else should be given free rein to try to turn the article into an advocacy site for Knox & Sollecito. But if there are problems that make it an advocacy site for the prosecution, that shouldn’t be allowed either. Banning knowledgeable people and locking the article to prevent corrections do nothing but hurt the credibility of Wikipedia IMO.Kermugin (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Kermuugin makes valid points regarding the need to examne not only proposed additions to the article for non-Neutral POV language but existing language as well. K, what specific changes would you suggest? Agreed on the PhanuelB issue as well. He did seem to have a near encylopedic knowledge of the case and the source material that documents it. Tjholme (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Kermugin, if you have spotted obvious errors in the article, why don't you choose one of them and propose a form of words that would resolve it (under a new section heading)? That is how articles get improved. Bluewave (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Kermugin:
"His point, I believe, was that numerous knowledgeable and credible people have raised serious questions."
Indeed. And from the article: "Media portrayals of the fairness of Knox and Sollecito's trial included a range of views. A number of commentators in the United States have harshly criticised the Italian legal process, including Donald Trump,[104] Timothy Egan[105] and journalist Judy Bachrach.[106]" Many people have commented on this case; we do not need to list them all.
Re Sollecito, I don't think the intent is for this sentence to represent 'everything he told police'. We can't reproduce all of Sollecito's statement to police. What else that he said do you think should be included? Has he in fact claimed that his statement was coerced? Knox's claims of mistreatment and coercion are notable because they have led to a slander charge against her.
I'd like to echo Bluewave; if there are sentences or sections that you think problematic, please suggest an alternative.  pablo 09:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I’m certain the statement attributed to Sollecito was not his original and came only after extensive interrogation, but as I noted above, I’m not an expert on every aspect of the case. There’s a lot I remember reading about but didn’t save the reference and don’t have precise RS for, i.e. I know when something isn’t accurate or neutral but don’t (yet) have resources to rewrite it. I haven’t had much time to spend on it but as I acquire the resources, I will present more specific changes. In the meantime, my point is that those who already have the resources (PhanuelB & others) are a valuable asset in trying to create a better quality article.Kermugin (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI to existing longtime editors. New editors are often accused of grandstanding or soapboxing simply because no one takes the time to advise them how the process works here and we're left to figure it out for ourselves. Sweeping discussions of the problems associated with the article, aside from generating a lot of smoke and noise, result in approximately zero real changes. To make a real change (1) identify the specific item you want to change, (2) propose a specific change, (3) give reason for change, (4) open the subject for discussion, (5) move for consensus. A simple statement like : "I suggest that X be changed to read Y because Z" works better than a long dissertation. (Believe me.. I've been the worst for soapboxing..) I really think a lot of the head butting that goes on here is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of how the consensus process works here. Not critiquing anyone, just stating what I've observed in my short time here. Tjholme (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Trial section

The trial section currently contains a paragraph which says:

After nearly six months of hearings, the trial was shut down early for summer vacation when Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to release to the defense previously withheld biological evidence.[91] The subsequently released evidence documented that the luminol revealed footprints did not contain Kercher's blood. On 14 September 2009, the defense requested that the murder indictments of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito be thrown out due to the length of time that the prosecution had withheld evidence. Judge Massei rejected the defense’s request.[92]

I've been looking at the sources cited for this section (91 & 92) but can't find anything in them saying that the footprints did not contain Kercher's blood. Have I missed the reference or can anyone help clarify this, please? Bluewave (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I did see some unsourced and badly sourced content in this paragraph when it was first introduced but then was destracted by other things going on. I'll have a new look at it at some point after finishing some real life stuff.TMCk (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it either. Paragraph was added here, I think, and needs reviewing.  pablo 20:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At present, that paragraph is a big chunk of the trial section, which makes it look like a really important part of the trial. Without the bit about the footprints not containing Kercher's blood, it would definitely be out of proportion. So I think we either need to establish that the sources support the significance of this part or else remove it. Bluewave (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to directly contradict "Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the footprints and elsewhere in the apartment.^[54]" from the 'forensic evidence' section, too. Note that the source here does not exactly back up the text either.  pablo 21:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)±

The appeal filed by Knox's lawyers indicates that the bare footprints detected using Luminol tested negative for DNA and negative for blood. I will see if I can find a WP:RS to back up this claim in the article. The earlier claim using reference 54 is incorrect. Even if it was supported by reference 54, is the Daily Beast really a reliable source? --Footwarrior (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what worries me, too. It may be an excerpt from Nadeau's book, but even so I'm wary of anything sourced solely to Nadeau.  pablo 23:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To save skipping back and forth here are the sources under discussion:

• 91
• 92
• 54

 pablo 23:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This was material added by a sock, since banned, in this edit [7]. The article was locked before it could be reverted. --FormerIP (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

well yes, and that's where 91 and 92 came from. But reference 54 isn't so hot either, and I think both sections need attention.  pablo 23:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the question of the The Daily Beast being RS: http://www.thedailybeast.com/ It doesn't show a traditional mast head that would prove editorial control, however, Tina Brown is the editor, and I imagine a quick email to them would confirm that they do have editorial oversight and fact-checking. If so, then it can be used as reliable source.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The English translation of the Massei report says the following:

With reference to the traces enhanced by Luminol, the test performed on the floor of the various areas of the flat had given the following results: in Ms. Romanelli’s room the trace indicated as L1 revealed the victim’s DNA. In the same room, in a point closer to the [206] entrance, a trace (L2) was found that yielded as a genetic result the mixed profile of both the victim and of Amanda Knox.

The Luminol also revealed another foot print, left along the hallway and the genetic result of the sample was the genetic profile of Amanda Knox.

Another sample, also taken from the hallway, but in front of the wall that separates the victim’s room from Knox’s room, yielded a mixed genetic profile: the victim plus Knox.

She pointed out that Luminol also detects substances other than blood. However, the presence of DNA also meant, necessarily, that biological material was present (page 102).

I appreciate that this is a primary source, and a translation at that! However, it is a useful comparison on what is said by the secondary sources. It makes the current statement in the article that the luminol revealed footprints did not contain Kercher's blood look highly misleading, at best. It does support (to an extent) citation 54, although that source doesn't speak of footprints but does specifically speak of the victim's 'blood' rather than 'DNA'. Bluewave (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking around for other secondary sources, particularly those dating from after 14 Sept 2009 (when new evidence was discussed according to the current article). This one[8] says [in the appeal document in April 2010] Knox's lawyers also contest the luminol-positive traces discovered in the corridor (footprints) and the spot in the roommates room where prosecutors say Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, later staged a break-in to make the scene look like a rape-robbery to throw off investigators. Police biologist Patrizia Stefanoni testified during the trial that these luminol-positive traces had mixed genetic material of Knox and Kercher. This seems to confirm the evidence presented at the trial that mixed DNA was found in the footprints and also confirms that this is being challenged at appeal. Bluewave (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source (based on the Massei report) says the police found Ms. Knox’s footprints in Ms. Kercher’s blood in the house after police used luminol[9]. Bluewave (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the above, I propose that we delete the paragraph that says:

After nearly six months of hearings, the trial was shut down early for summer vacation when Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to release to the defense previously withheld biological evidence.[91] The subsequently released evidence documented that the luminol revealed footprints did not contain Kercher's blood. On 14 September 2009, the defense requested that the murder indictments of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito be thrown out due to the length of time that the prosecution had withheld evidence. Judge Massei rejected the defense’s request.[92]

This was apparently added by a now-banned suspected sock. The assertions are not supported by the references given. They also seem to be contradicted by other reliable secondary sources and by the main primary source (the Massei report). I also think we need to do some rewording of the bit about bloody footprints in the evidence section but I'm less clear about what needs to be done there. Bluewave (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

References [91] and [92] do support the statements regarding why the trail was shut down and the defense request to throw out the indictments after the trial resumed. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit tired here, but I am not seeing anything in [91] (or [92] for that matter) that asserts or implies that the trial was shut down because Massei ordered the prosecution to release evidence.  pablo 21:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

( off-topic discussion moved: see Block discussion )

The shutting down was just part of the court's yearly timetable. But I think you're right that the withholding of evidence is notable and I'd suggest maybe adding a bit to the end of the piece about defence arguments, saying something like: After the court's summer recess, the defence unsuccessfully requested that the murder indictments of Knox and Sollecito be thrown out owing to the prosecution's withholding some of the forensic evidence and only releasing it late in the trial and on the order of Judge Massei. Bluewave (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference [91} clearly states the trail "was suspended on July 18 when defense lawyers objected that not all biological evidence analyzed by the forensic police had been made available to defense lawyers." --Footwarrior (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK I see what you mean. I was looking at the headline which states Trial Resumes After Summer Recess. What do you suggest then? Bluewave (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this really is too much detail. A number of editors (if memory serves, Footwarrior, you have been one of them) think there is too much of this type of thing already. Trials get adjourned, lawyers put forward arguments. That's what happens in trials. I really don't see why it's interesting. We don't have any information that this impacted on the case in any particular way.

If we are going to include this information, it should be noted that the source supports that the defence lawyers made an argument claiming that evidence had been withheld, not that any evidence actually had been withheld. --FormerIP (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a couple of goes here at formulating concrete proposals for dealing with this paragraph in the trials section. Would someone else like to have a try? Bluewave (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim that evidence had been withheld is supported by reference 92, "Dalla Vedova told the court that the roughly 300 pages of documents submitted in July provided information "that turns evidence upside-down." --Footwarrior (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

But Dalla Vedova is one of Knox's lawyers. So what we have is information about something claimed by the defence. We can't report this as fact, particularly since we also know that the argument was rejected by the judge. --FormerIP (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claim was that the reference didn't support evidence being withheld, not about the contents. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim doesn't support that the evidence was withheld, only that the defence said it was. According to the article, the defence "claimed" this, "asserted" this, "argued" this and "told the court" that this was the case, but nowhere are we told that it actually was the case. It looks like a technical matter to do with Italian rules of disclosure, on which none of us are experts. Although the article doesn't report his reasons, it does tell us that the judge rejected the defence arguments.

In any event, my main point is that this is just inconsequential minutiae to do with the day-to-day process. Why aren't we trying to turn the article into something that can be more easily read and understood? --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Withholding of evidence from the defense in a criminal trail is a serious matter. I don't know about Italy, but in this country it can result in felony convictions for those involved. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, which is why it is important for us not to make an allegation concerning it in WP's voice. It's also important to understand the distinction between evidence being withheld on the one hand and there having been an (unsuccessful) argument in court about whether evidence was withheld. Withholding evidence might be significant for the article, but a defence argument that evidence was withheld by the prosecution is just evidence that lawyers are involved in this story. --FormerIP (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The section as currently written contains a statement about footprints not containing blood that is not supported by the sources. I think that needs fixing in some way. That whole paragraph is also quite a large part of the whole coverage of the trial, which looks to me like it is a bit out of proportion. Could I ask whether Footwarrior is happy with that paragraph as it stands and, if not, what should we do to improve it? I think a concrete proposal would help us here. Bluewave (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to come up with something, but right now events in real life are demanding my attention. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the trial being suspended due to withheld evidence should stay. As should a mention that about 300 documents were then provided. Reference [92] indicates that the lab notes about the quantity of DNA from the knife being "too low" was among those documents. It could be mentioned here, but it might fit better in a discussion of the DNA evidence. As for this being a large part of the trial section, that may be because a lot of text that really belongs in the trail section is elsewhere in the article. The dispute over when RS called the police, the scream heard by the elderly neighbor, and probably the entire prosecution and defense arguments section should be in the trail section. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If this material does stay in the article, then it should be clearly worded to indicate that the allegation of withholding evidence was advanced by the defence and rejected by the court. Anything else would be a misrepresentation of the source and a BLP violation (in fact, if anyone with keys to the article is reading this, the material should be removed pending the outcome of this discussion - since it seems agreed that the stuff about luminol is inappropriate, this would mean the whole paragraph).

Where a legal argument is advanced and rejected by the court, then I think its significance falls below the threshold we ought to be applying for including information in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the court did find the prosecution withheld evidence and forced them to turn it over to the defense. What they didn't do is declare a mistrial. This is not a WP:BLP issue. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an RS that supports this, Footwarrior, because it isn't contained in the story on the ABC website. --FormerIP (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Quoting reference 91 "The trial is expected to pick up where it left off – with a forensic expert for Sollecito. The testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci, an authoritative forensic geneticist, was suspended on July 18 when defense lawyers objected that not all biological evidence analyzed by the forensic police had been made available to defense lawyers." Do we have to play this game on every edit to the article? --Footwarrior (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks likely if you are intent on misrepresenting sources. In the quote you provide there is nothing to support your above claim (that the court found that evidence had been withheld) and we have the phrase "defence lawyers objected that...". So, once again, this is a defence claim, not an objective fact. Also, there is a difference between not providing something and withholding it. In most major court cases, the defence receive only a fraction of what has been collected by the prosecution, and legal systems have rules to govern how this is done. That's normal, not "withholding evidence". There can be courtroom disputes about whether these rules have been applied properly, which is what we appear to have here. Big deal. --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

for discussion

• "when Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to release to the defense previously withheld biological evidence." is not in the cited source, which says

"The trial is expected to pick up where it left off – with a forensic expert for Sollecito. The testimony of Adriano Tagliabracci, an authoritative forensic geneticist, was suspended on July 18 when defense lawyers objected that not all biological evidence analyzed by the forensic police had been made available to defense lawyers."

• "The subsequently released evidence documented that the luminol revealed footprints did not contain Kercher's blood." is not in either of the cited sources, and should go.
• "On 14 September 2009, the defense requested that the murder indictments of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito be thrown out due to the length of time that the prosecution had withheld evidence. Judge Massei rejected the defense’s request." seems to me to be fine, and sourced by [92].

Unless supporting sources can be found I therefore suggest replacing

After nearly six months of hearings, the trial was shut down early for summer vacation when Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to release to the defense previously withheld biological evidence.[91] The subsequently released evidence documented that the luminol revealed footprints did not contain Kercher's blood.

with

Defence lawyers objected that they had not had access to all the forensic evidence, and the trial was suspended on July 18, resuming in September after the summer recess.[91]

 pablo 13:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)edited  pablo 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that change. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Including the deletion of the sentence mentioning luminol. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree too. Bluewave (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"...due to the length of time that the prosecution had withheld evidence..." is not supported by any source. Sources only ever refer to this as a (failed) defence claim. This is important, because "withholding" has a specific legal meaning and is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that this was a defence ploy which failed, which is why I didn't suggest altering that part. How would you reword it to make it clearer?  pablo 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We could have "On 14 September 2009, the defense requested that the murder indictments [we already know who the defendents are so this bit is not needed] be thrown out, alleging that the prosecution had withheld evidence. Judge Massei rejected the defense’s request." --FormerIP (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

For brevity: "When the trial resumed, the defense tried unsuccessfully to have the murder indictments thrown out, alleging that the prosecution had withheld evidence." --FormerIP (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

General thoughts on weight about defense/prosecution arguments

While a trial is ongoing (or about to start), there is usually some more weight given to the defense case, even equaling the prosecutors arguments. But ons a verdict is reached, the defense case that wasn't accepted by the court and most importantly in the verdict becomes in part undue. Now that the appeal is about to start, new and reintroduced evidence by the defense should again be given proper weight close to the prosecutions (new and also the old evidence that determined the first trial). this is not meant as a blank-check but should be kept in mind going forward.TMCk (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I mostly agree, but I'm not very sure how the appeals will proceed to it is hard to know how the article should respond. I think a big concern (which I grimly predict) is that anything that happens in the courtroom will be felt to have enormous significance. I think the right thing to do will be to be conservative in terms of what gets added and to be wary of recentism - what seems important on the day it happens may not be important in the wider context. The article is already far too detailed for an encyclopaedia. --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Any significance of what will happen in the court room has to be decided by RS's and consensus. Like I said, this was not meant to be a "free roaming chicken" get out of jail free free card to add news as is happens and we still have have a no deadline policy just to mention a few.TMCk (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it should be more of an oven-ready chicken, ie we should err on the side of caution when recording what happens with the appeals, ideally I suppose we can include the fact of the start of an appeal and the result thereof - and not much else.  pablo 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I do like "oven-ready chicken" but I also like to see how it is prepared; And I wouldn't call the cook (and even less the a factory) a RS. :) TMCk (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TMCk's statements. With an active appeal starting both sides of the case need to be presented as balanced as possible. RS and consensus required. Hope we can agree on a little latitude for expert testimony in the form of opinion clearly noted as such to aid in explaining the significance of evidence that might not be immediately obvious to a casual reader. Not looking for a blank check here, but Expert Opinions exists in court to explain complex issues and might be valuable here for the same reason IMO, especially when DNA evidence comes up. Tjholme (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeals..
We have to be careful with these and need to filter them to avoid the kind of "the prosecution said 'X'" but the defence said 'not X' which have plagued te article in the past. The most important things here (both for the encyclopedia and the defendants) are the results.  pablo 08:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

With the appeals coming up, I think we need to be very careful that the article is not making any statements about the defendants, that would imply that Wikipedia has prejudged their guilt or innocence. It's our job to report factual events, such as the fact that all three were found guilty by the courts, but we have to avoid crossing the line of saying they are guilty, or of referring to "murderers" or "criminals" etc. Also, I think we need to make sure there is balance in the way we describe the prosecution and defence cases: I suppose my view here would be that we should make sure there is enough detail to show that both sides put forward robust cases (which they did), but not enough detail that we seem to be inviting the reader to decide which side had the stronger case. I share the concerns about how we are going to handle edits during the appeals. The problem is that our "reliable sources" are largely the newspapers and TV, who are fairly reliable in reporting the facts but are adept at dressing the facts up to try and make them as newsworthy as possible. When the appeals start, I predict a fair number of "shocking revelations", "devastating evidence", "courtroom dramas" and all the usual journalistic cliches. We could be inundated by helpful people who have read the latest (and apparently most notable) piece of evidence and believe that it should be the centrepiece of the article! Bluewave (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I welcome this discussion and feel it could be productive. This will take some skill to do right but I believe it is doable. What will make this intellectually challenging is that this is essentially a de novo proceeding, linked to but not identical to the original case. The appeals of AK & RS are not identical and neither deals with all aspects of the case. New developments do need to be incorporated but judicially. I recommend that we begin with a some sort of outline of what the grounds of the appeal are I would welcome a similarly frank and open discussion about the uniquely difficult problem of reliable sources in this case. Id done correctly, such a discussion could benefit this article and also others engulfed in controversy.PietroLegno (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We'll start with an appeal section ones the appeal has started and some due weight development (in RS's news) is available which adds usefull facts to the article.TMCk (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad wikilink for Rudy Hermann Guede

Fix the wikilink for Rudy Hermann Guede in the article lead so it points to the Rudy Guede section of this article.

I can't see how this could be controversial. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Must be some old leftover and shoud be fixed.TMCk (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The links to Knox, Sollecito and Guede should all be removed, actually. All three names redirect to this article. Resolute 04:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently my hope for an easy fix was in vain. I will remove the editprotected request and let you folks figure out how to fix the problem. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Whether the links should be there at all is a separate question, but until that's discussed I've fixed Guede's so it actually works. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating via a sandbox version

Hi, Wikid77 here. I think the article should be updated by editing a sandbox version: Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/sandbox, then specifying a specific revision ID (from the sandbox version) which an admin would install as the live version. The admin would, of course, be considered the author of that particular update, but the sandbox would record all the gruesome details of the various tiny edits, if someone tried to slip in a suspicious change. I am coming back from a 3-month topic ban which prohibited Knox/Kercher AfDs or creation of spinoff articles, but I dread the current non-wiki-style editing, of requesting permission for every tiny edit. However, a sandbox version would be good to keep all trivial edits combined, as fewer major updates to the article. Any controversial edits could be reverted in the sandbox, then specify which revision ID was "stable" to be copied as the next major revision. There appear to be many, many minor problems which should be corrected. I have heard that the Knox re-trial will begin 24 November 2010, with verdict expected by March 2011, so there is ample time to update the sandbox, in multiple stages, to reflect major events. Perhaps an admin should create the sandbox? -Wikid77 (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this adds anything except another layer of unnecessary process; this page is functioning as a 'sandbox' in this manner currently, edits are being made to the article. The next major events are the start of the various appeals; it really won't be necessary to make major edits to record these dates.  pablo 08:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikid77, you may have missed some of the latest excitement on this page, but one of the problems we have been facing is that even the edits that (in your words) seem "tiny" or "trivial" can result in a lot of arguments. For instance, there has been a recent "controversy" over the use of the word had as a replacement for has, and whether there are neutrality issues involved in such a replacement. I fear that the sandbox could just turn into another edit-warring battleground which would end up wasting more time on unproductive work. However, I'm not sure that we need "permission" (as you put it) for every edit: we just need consensus. And this is no different from how it's always been. So if you propose a tiny or trivial edit, no-one will oppose it and it will be quickly implemented. I suggest you give the current regime a try, before arguing for a change. Bluewave (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikid77. Your suggestion may be worth thinking about, but would need the buy-in of editors, since I don't think it is something that admins or anyone else could impose. As Pablo says, though, its quite possible now to "sandbox" elements of the article on the talkpage. If a sandbox were to be created, it should be in userspace, not mainspace. It may defeat the purpose of the lock, though, if edit-warring just ends up being transferred to the sandbox.

PS I may be misunderstanding, but are you not topic-banned until Saturday? --FormerIP (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wikid77.. Nice to have you back. Haven't met you (so to speak) but have reviewed your previous work and subsequent banning, and do support your positions in general. Not all the controversies have been as small as had/has and some small progress has been made in balancing the general POV. Tjholme (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Wikid77. You have been mentioned a number of times and I am sure you will add a valuable perspective. Your user page is very impressive. PietroLegno (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Block discussion

(moved from above; re Gregmm (talk · contribs)). Now read on

I also asked on the Admin noticeboard for the reasons why this editor was blocked after making only one edit. So far I have not received a reply. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, no. You did get replies and if they are not to your satisfaction you are free to dig further. Also I would be much appreciated if you could find some time to respond to my inquire in the very same part of the discussion.TMCk (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was asking for the reasons why that editor was blocked. Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks clearly states "Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested." --Footwarrior (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

How about moving that sub-discussion to a different and more appropriate venue? MLauba ^(Talk) 15:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I pointed out in my editsummary that we shouldn't go on here although I missed to place it in my actual edit. So yes, let's please continuing it at ANI or if you (Footwarrior) would like to continue on my talkpage that would be fine too and I will move it there if you agree.TMCk (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have asked that question on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher.2C_again.2C_uninvolved_admins_please, but it's been ignored. Can you or Black Kite respond to my question on the noticeboard? --Footwarrior (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor knows why they were blocked and their unblock was dealt with via the email list. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If this issue has been picked up over at at ANI I'm not seeing it. I support Footwarrior's position in this. While I can understand how a new editor that's able to jump right in and edit might trip the sockpuppet radar, the facts are that Gregmm was blocked for what amounts to suspicious behaviour. He made a single edit. Didn't attack anyone. Didn't vandalize the site. It's been 6 days. With due respect, the sockpuppet thing needs a ruling. Either uphold the block for specific cause or drop it and let Gregmm go back to work. Tjholme (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim is that Gregmm was a sockpuppet. What was the evidence used to support this decision? --Footwarrior (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Footwarrior in this. An email to the blocked editor is appropriate but not sufficient. I would hope that the community would be entitled to examine any evidence supporting the block. I would hope that mere suspicion never becomes confused with actionable proof. PietroLegno (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are concerned about the decision, then perhaps you should ask User:Crazycomputers - he's the admin that seems to have declined the unblock request. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you could direct me to where CrazyC discusses his/her decision that would be most helpful. I find I am missing the finer points of the Wiki bureaucracy.PietroLegno (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been discussed by email, perhaps because of a privacy concern. If you click on the username in my post above, this will take you to his userpage where you can ask him to comment. I imagine he won't want to give you the full details, but you can have confidence that he is independent (he's just an admin who happened by the unblock request). --FormerIP (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Criminal slander case against Amanda Knox

The words "following an investigation" are not supported by the reference. Unless someone can dig up a reference stating that there was an investigation, this section should be reworded. The section should also mention that Knox's parents will also be charged with slander for repeating Amanda's claim. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This source[10] says The slander charges follow an investigation into Knox's claims that she was beaten by Perugia police during questioning about the killing. And this one[11] says Today prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who led the case against her, confirmed that Knox had been formally notified that the slander investigation had ended.Bluewave (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

there doesnt appear to be any citation on the "following an investigation" line at all. Bluewave's citation looks good, so do we have consensus to use it and who's going to add it? Tjholme (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the addition of the first reference,

<ref name="komo30052010">{{cite news
 |url=http://www.seattlepi.com/local/420882_knox30.html?source=mypi
 |title=Did Amanda Knox slander police? Second trial set to start Tuesday
 |last=KOMO-TV staff
 |date=May 30, 2010
 |work=Seattle Post-Intelligencer
 |accessdate=9 September 2010
 |location=Seattle}}</ref>

to this sentence.  pablo 16:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes agree. No strong opinion about which source to use, but if one of them is already used elsewhere, we could just use the "ref name=" tag. "Location" is normally the place of publication, not where the report was written, isn't it (?), so that would be "Seattle".--FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC) corrected  pablo 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}In the 'Criminal slander case against Amanda Knox' section, the words "Following an investigation" are currently followed with a 'citation needed' tag. Please replace this tag with the reference (named "komo30052010") above. I believe the above discussion constitutes consensus on this edit. Bluewave (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

12:58

In the section events surrounding the murder a claim is made that "evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did". This should be removed, because the source (here: [12]) does not say that the police arrived at this time, it only offers speculation that the defence might be able to prove this at trial.

Italian version: Il loro reale arrivo viene ripreso dalla videocamera alle ore 12,48, momento in cui si accingono a varcare a piedi il cancello del casolare. Per quale motivo due differenti versioni di orario? Semplice: agli agenti della Postale, e non solo a loro, viene riferito che l'orologio delle telecamere registra un errato orario: andrebbe 10 minuti avanti. Solo durante il processo in corso la difesa di Raffaele riesce a dimostrare inequivocabilmente che quell'orologio registra, si, un orario sbagliato, ma di piu di 10 minuti indietro e non avanti, quindi gli orari predetti vanno corretti, aggiungendo almeno 10 minuti e non sottraendo 10 minuti: la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58.

My translation: Their actual arrival is captured by the camera at 12.48 pm, just as they walk past the gate to the house. Why two different versions of the time? Simple: it was reported to the officials of the Postal Service,and not only to them, that the CCTV clock recorded the wrong time: it was ten minutes fast. Only during the ongoing trial can Raffaele's defence prove unequivocally that the clock did indeed record a wrong time, but that it was slow, not fast, and thus the time should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not by subtracting 10 minutes: in fact, the Postal Police arrived on the scene no earlier than 12.58 pm.

(Incidentally, I asked an Italian-speaking editor to comment on this translation, and he said it was accurate: [13]).

--FormerIP (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that your attempt to get this source discussed at the Reliable sources noticeboard was met with zero interest from anyone independent. Bluewave (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not buying this argument at all. We just spent an inordinate amount of time the other day getting this corrected and now a proposal is being made to essentially change it back. At trial Buongiorno argued that the clock was 10 minutes slow; a reliable source reported that argument. There is not a thing speculative about it. Further the motivations report implicitly accepted the defense argument on this point by treating this issue as non-probative. We therefore have two viable options: 1) leave the passage as is and respect the decision the other day; or 2) simply remove all references to phone calls and the time of arrival. This is an issue that originally seemed important but is now clearly much ado about nothing. Finally, while I am sure your Italian is impeccable, we cannot as a matter of principle accept private translations. I note that the Italian-speaking editor in question is an involved party in this article.PietroLegno (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we spent and inordinate amount of time arguing about it, which we never finished. No source has been provided for any Buongiorno making any argument about it being slow. All we have is the speculation of a journalist for a tiny Italian freesheet that an argument might be made and might be successful, with no other detail given. I don't see how you can make out there's nothing speculative about it. "Only during the ongoing trial can Raffaele's defence prove..." it says. There is no suggestion that it has been proved, or even argued.

As for Massei, here is the link to the English translation: [14]. Massei doesn't discuss the issue of CCTV timestamp, as you say. But I don't see how this can be taken to imply that he accepts an argument by the defence about it, particularly since it is not clear what argument was made, if any, and particularly since he repeatedly refers to the police having arrived shortly after 12.30 (see, for example, the top of page 93 of the translation). This hardly seems consistent with him having tacitly accepted a defence argument that the actual time was half and hour later, assuming any such argument was ever made.

What we have here are two court judgments specifying the time of arrival at about 12:30 and we are telling the readers it was half an hour later, on the basis of an unbelievably weak source. What is wrong with us, if not a ridiculous level of bias? --FormerIP (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be correct to at minimum note the discrepancy of the accuracy of the timer, as it was part of the trial. I also see the case to remove it altogether, since the issue was dropped completely, as probative, in the Massei Report. The prosecution argued that it meant guilt for the defendent -- (and the defense gave a rebuttal) -- but Massei and the jury did not pass those assumptions along to the motivation report. Perk10 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Another way to put it -- can we take the Massei Report to be complete in terms of probabltive cause for the conviction and sentencing? Perk10 (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can assume that, if the Massei report didn't mention the argument, it was implicitly accepting the defence argument. The Massei report is a primary source and, as such, we are not entitled to make any interpretation of it. Bluewave (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Verifying the accuracy of the timer would have been an easy thing to do, at the time. But I can find no statement from the owners of the car park or the operators of the CCTV to confirm that this was done. I am not sure that we can then accept the theory that the camera time is 10 minutes slow. Neither can we assume, as Bluewave says, that anything not specifically countered by Massei is correct. Especially as the time of arrival in that report is given as just after 12:30.  pablo 22:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying it is not complete a complete defense of the conviction and sentencing? Perk10 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

First of all we have to consider that it is a primary source and document it accordingly, cite from it as such. Perk10 (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

We also should remember that Massei did not accept the prosecution's case wholesale. The judges and jury offered a new scenario divergent from the prosecution's argument. Perk10 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

FormerIP - The discrepancy of the time clock is noted in what seems to be also a primary source and could be referred to in that way. Ultimately it is part of the defense, and the question remains open as to whether the Massei report left things out put forth by the prosecution that were also probative. If I had to vote, I'd vote for removing it, or stating it as an argument of the prosecution and include the rebuttal as an argument of the defense. That would be more encyclopedic. The main problem is that the prosecution's arguments are not the same thing as the final judge's report, even if the conviction was in agreement. The article needs to be brought in line with the Massei report and can include what led up to that with the prosecution and defense arguements. Perk10 (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perk10: So can we agree to remove it? I hear what you are saying about stating the defence and prosecution cases on the matter, but AFAICT we have only weak sourcing for the prosecution version and no sourcing at all for what has been claimed to be the defence version. I don't necessarily object to the idea of trying to bring the article into line with the Massei report (and Michelli - remember there are three defendants in this case), but that's a more general issue. FormerIP (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious guys. Mr. Wilkes answered all of these objections the other day--and then some. You have no argument to make and this is going in circles. Keep it as is or remove it. If I had a free hand I would just get rid of all references to the calls and time of arrival. It is a lot of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing.PietroLegno (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So, if I am understanding you correctly, Pietro, you also think it would be okay to remove the text ""evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did", given that it is unsourced? --FormerIP (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

proposed edit:

Remove the text ", just as Sollecito said they did". in the Events surrounding the murder section.

Do we have a consensus for this change? --Footwarrior (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Because "evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm" is also unsourced. (Apologies for moving your comment, Footwarrior, but I want to split off Charlie Wilke's comments, which are worth responding to, but off-topic for this section). --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Massei report - why no discussion of CCTV footage?

I have a question. Did the Massei Report list the arrival as 12:35pm, conceding to the "fast clock" claim of the prosecution? I can also look in the previous discussions, as well, to find more information on the specifics of that. 209.63.205.129 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

Interesting discussion. I gather the consensus to be that Matteini's report of November 2007 remains definitive with regard to when the Postal Police arrived.

That is your choice to make, but I wouldn't dismiss this point as insignificant. If Sollecito only called the emergency number 15 minutes after the police were on the scene, and spoke to an operator at some length, twice, without mentioning that police were present, that is a deeply incriminating fact. One must wonder why Judge Massei neglected to mention it.

This is, after all, the same judge who found deception and guile in Knox's attempts to call Meredith's cell phones:

"[T]he first phone call that Amanda made on November 2, 2007 (see the specific chapter dedicated to an examination of the cellular telephone traffic of Amanda Knox) at 12:07 pm was to Meredith’s English subscriber line. And even this circumstance does not appear to be without significance. In fact, Amanda and Raffaele (the calls to Meredith and Romanelli occurred while Amanda was at the home of Raffaele Sollecito), before calling Romanelli and recounting the situation, wanted to make sure that Meredith’s mobile phones had not been found by someone who had reported the discovery leading to the start of an investigation and search.

Once they had that reassurance (the phones not being answered by anyone), they could raise the alarm..."

Massei's analysis, brilliant though it is, wobbles slightly on the fact that Meredith had two cell phones, and Amanda only called one of them before calling Filomena. But that is another subject. Don't you find it interesting that Massei completely overlooked the incriminating fact that Raffaele did not call the police until the police had been on the scene for 15 minutes? Charlie wilkes (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That Massei didn't mention RS calling 112 after the Postal Police arrived is interesting, but not really useful for Wikipedia. We can't reference the absence of some fact in a source to support a claim. Regardless of this, the existing text is a NPOV on the issue. The first part of the text only states the Postal Police arrived before the Carabinieri. The second part explains the trial dispute regarding the order of the Postal Police arrival and the 112 call. I would however like to see one minor change to this part of the article. -Footwarrior (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Except we have no evidence for the existence of a trial dispute over this matter, Footwarrior. That's the point of my proposal above - we can't have information in the article that is unsourced. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charlie. Hope you don't mind me creating a new section for your comments. We are not really supposed to speculate (as opposed to discussing the content of reliable sources) on WP talkpages. However, I think your comments may lead to illuminating discussion and I am happy to continue the discussion as long as there are no objections.

Here is what I would speculate in return.

I do not think it is the case that issues to do with the timestamp on the CCTV were ever discussed at the K&S trial. No evidence has been presented that they were, and the Massei report is extremely detailed, so I think it would be surprising if he failed to address a significant issue which had been brought to his attention by the defence during the trial.

Since the argument that the CCTV clock was slow had failed in the Guede trial, Sollecito's lawyers decided it was not worth pursuing in the K&S trial. The evidence the other way, from the Guede trial, is pretty sound. When the CCTV footage was obtained, the hardware was also examined and it was noted that the clock was 10 minutes fast. This kind of evidence is hard to argue against, so it would not be surprising that Sollecico's team decided not to, particularly because their success on this point would not have increased their client's chances of acquittal in any event.

Given this, Massei has two pieces of evidence before him. Firstly: that the police arrived just after 12.30, according to their own account. No-one has disputed this, so Massei states it as fact in his report (p93 of the translation). Secondly: that Sollectio had called the police before they arrived at the scene, according to Sollecito. Since the time of the phonecalls to the police is certain, either Sollecito is wrong or the police are wrong. But which?

I think Massei has taken the position that he does not need to worry too much about this discrepancy, since he does not need to reach a conclusion in order to determine the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. I think he has also taken into account the fact that it would have been difficult for Sollecito to phone the police whilst there were police officers in the flat without being overheard. It would not, of course, have been impossible, but no evidence was presented that Sollectio discretely went to the toilet or anything like that. So Massei is left with the police version, which he accepts, and Sollecito's version, which he implicitly does not accept, but which he does not feel is impossible and which has no strong bearing on Sollecito's guilt in any case.

The sequence of events here does not matter in terms of the verdict in any case. If Sollecito did ring the police before they arrived, this does not make him innocent, just smart enough to realise that if he wanted to fake a robbery, then it would be wise to report it. If he lied to the police when they arrived then this would not make him guilty, just suitably embarrassed about telling the police that he had not reported the burglary in order for him to tell an ill-advised lie about it.

For the article, though, the issue is whether any source tells us that the police arrived at 12:58, which no source appears to. --FormerIP (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the presentation I linked, and do you understand its main point, i.e., the camera clock shows the Carabinieri arriving seven minutes before making a five minute call to ask for directions because they could not find the address?Charlie wilkes (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at it and I understand that you say that this is part of the defence's presentation that they say demonstrates that the clock on the camera is wrong. It does not point to a definite arrival time. The clause "just as Sollecito said they did" is wrong for an encyclopaedia  pablo 10:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you think this should be resolved?Charlie wilkes (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Current text:

At trial, the prosecution claimed that the Post and Communications Police arrived at 12:35 pm, before Sollecito called 112.[28] The defense countered by noting that the 12:46 pm time for the receipt of the second phone at the police station,[28] and evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did.[29]

does not make it clear that this is part of the defence case rather than a fact. There is no source for the arrival time being 12:58. [29] is speculative.

That being said, I think it's a minor point whether Sollecito called the Carabineri before or after the arrival of the Postales. pablo 22:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC

I think it is an important point. If Sollecito called the police 15 minutes after they were on site, and spoke to an operator twice without mentioning that the police were already present, that is deeply incriminating behavior. If, however, the police testified that they arrived before he made the call, and the defense showed that this is not the case, it raises questions about the reliability of police testimony. What is more, if the defense has successfully refuted this element of the case, but Massei neglected to acknowledge it in his report, it raises questions about the fairness and impartiality of the court.Charlie wilkes (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's incriminating is a matter of opinion. I don't think it necessarily is. Odd, certainly. The other problem is that we don't know whether "the defence has successfully refuted this element of the case", so any questions bout impartiality are moot.  pablo 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Describing murder events in intro

The intro section needs to be restored to describe the murder in more detail, rather than dwell 80% on the initial arrests & convictions. If the article becomes too large, we can re-split into a separate article for the Trial of Knox and Sollecito. Specifically, there are 4 policies which support expansion of the intro:

• WP:NOTPAPER notes that article size is not limited to printing on paper.
• WP:NOTCENSORED prohibits censoring text, even if objectionable on religious or moral grounds.
• WP:UNDUE advises to keep text in proportion to the total subject.
• WP:LEAD advises to list major controversies in the intro section.

The article should begin as follows:

The murder of Meredith Kercher occurred in Perugia, Italy, on 1 November 2007. The following day, police discovered the body of the 21-year-old British university exchange student in the upstairs flat that she shared with three other young women. She was found lying partially clothed under a duvet in her locked bedroom, with blood on the floor, bed and walls. Forensic pathologists concluded strangulation had been attempted, and her neck was stabbed, causing fatal bleeding. Her body had over 40 bruises and scratches, plus knife wounds on the neck and hands, and there was evidence of sexual assault. Two credit cards, 300 euros, and her house keys were missing, but her two mobile phones were found in gardens about 1 km away (0.6 mi).

The article needs to focus on explaining the murder, and the intro needs to mention the basics. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree as to split off of "Trials of Knox and Sollecito". The Murder of Meredith Kercher - the deed, the investigation, the prosecution and the sentencing are all complete, It's all been well documented by WP:RS and should be represented by a complete article with little need for change. The ongoing controversy surrounding the trials as well as the slander trial and upcoming appeal are outgrowing the MoMK article and overshadowing the original subject (i.e. the murder case), and they're only going to get bigger going forward. Vote to transition Knox and Sollecito trial material onto new page and strip same from original MoMK page. Tjholme (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree to the split off but would like to see the full names in the title "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Jaberryhill (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Split trials to new subarticle

I agree, it is about time NOW to make a split, and the plural title "Trials of Knox and Sollecito" allows for adding the slander trial (from October 2010) and the Kercher-trial appeal (November 2010), and the Knox-parents slander case, plus containing the civil cases, to allow the MoMK article, instead, to focus on the murder events: meetings between the suspects and Meredith, listing detailed forensic evidence, such as DNA sample sizes (RFU peaks), fingerprints, shoeprints, luminol spots, plus the crime-scene vandalism events (entry through the balcony kitchen window), etc. It is just too limiting to be "miserly with the truth" when there are so many reliable sources about MoMK details. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. This will lead to further "he said, she said" arguments, overly detailed analysis of forensic evidence from primary sources and so on. It is not the job of an encyclopaedia to document every last little detail. Quantpole (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There was a previous proposal to split off the trial section and a further proposal to create a separate Amanda Knox article. Both resulted in a consensus to stick with one article. From a purely practical point of view, the current article has required the intervention of several admins and the imposition of an edit lock to keep things manageable. Splitting it into several articles will just multiply the problems. And, if there are POV disputes, it makes much more sense to force them to resolved in one place, rather than to allow the possibility of the dreaded wp:POV forks. Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any need to do this right now. I think it is better to be seen as "miserly with the truth" (i.e. careful to limit the article to relevant and verified facts) rather than fill many articles with the kind of content suggested in this post.  pablo 09:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The usual reason for creating sub-articles is that the main article is too long. The main body of "readable prose" in this article is about 31kbytes which, according to Wikipedia:LENGTH's rule of thumb does not justify splitting on length grounds. Bluewave (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention doubling the amount of administrative attention that the new article (which will inevitably be as contentious as this one). No, this idea isn't a good one, and more to the point it is an unnecessary one. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing "Not Done" symbol. Admins and editors, I checked this thread at midnight Pacific Time last night and there was no discussion posted. I check again at 0600 Pacific and find that our British contingent has discussed the matter amongst themselves and unilaterally turned it down. I think it would be good form to at least let the American contingent consider the issue and have their say before deciding that the consensus is to "Not Do". Tjholme (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Here is your "American contingent" you asked for: I agree with the "British contingent". Better now?TMCk (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"British contingent" eh? Never been called one (or part) of those before.  pablo 14:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Guess it's just another funny way to describe "guilters" or at least "non pro-Amanda" editors. Wonder if there is a nick for the middleground though.TMCk (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a middleground, didntchaknow? At any rate, a split is premature. If a reasonable amount of new material comes from these appeals and lawsuits, it may become necessary in the future. But lets wait for that future to arrive first. Resolute 14:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought NPOV would be the middleground which is still missing a nick-name ;) .TMCk (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Presumably this would be the Florense contingent. And, yes, I did just look that up on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should ring up the mayor of Santa Cruz das Flores and ask him to dictate a perfectly balanced and neutral article for us. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind middle ground! What's the name for people who neither know nor care whether Amanda Knox is guilty or innocent, but do care passionately about producing an encyclopedia? Bluewave (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct answer is "neutral editors" (and we have a few her).TMCk (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the issue: As pointed out here and in various other threads, there is no need for a split unless the article becomes "oversized". No major development occurred since the last verdict and therefore no major additions exist to be added. There is still plenty of space for everything else.TMCk (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea of a split. The trial evidence needs more explication. As the appeals start to happen this will be even more the case. I also note that there is a great deal of inconsistency to the arguments against a split. Very valid arguments have been advanced about the need to add material to the article. These have been attacked because doing so would make the article too long. Now a proposal to split is attacked because the current article is not yet over-sized. But I bet if I propose adding to the current article in significant ways that will get attacked too. I think the real problem is an aversion to having reliably sourced information discussed.PietroLegno (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't POV-fork an article just b/c it might get to big when some future event (the appeal) is scheduled. If you have more to add to the current section propose it in a new section. Also, again and again and again......., don't comment on the editors, comment on the article's subject. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you consider a POV-fork? Perk10 (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Perk10

B/c for almost a year, whenever a split was made or proposed it either started as one or quickly became one. Nevertheless I should of course AGF and call it just a content-fork, splitting of content that belongs in this article which, again has still plenty of space for more prose.TMCk (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PietroLegno, I personally don't favour expanding the article and neither do I favour splitting it. But I don't see any inconsistency in holding both these views simultaneously. In my view, some of the very best articles on Wikipedia are concise and self-contained. Bluewave (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• The main article is currently protected because of the problems with it. The protection has solved many of the issues of edit-warring and disruption on the talkpage. If a number of recent SPA editors think they can circumvent this by splitting off the contentious content into another article (which of course would not be protected) then they really need to think again. The community is not stupid, frankly. Every neutral editor here has pointed out why the article should not be split. If any editor wishes to write a sub-article in userspace and present it to the community here, along with policy-compliant reasons why it should be split from this one, then feel free to do so. Thankyou. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

But I bet if I propose adding to the current article in significant ways that will get attacked too. To answer, PietroLegno, all too often the proposals to "add to the current article in significant ways" have been disruptive. Has the situation with Knox and Sollecito changed much since December, when the Trial of Knox and Sollecito page was merged following an AfD discussion? Would a sub-article be a true benefit to the topic, or just turn into a coatrack and POV and vandal magnet? We could certainly do without another long, drawn-out, embroiled dispute such as this one, which was the result of a similar sub-page being brought back too soon. SuperMarioMan 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for formatting

General suggestion as follows --

I. Section for Rudy Guede's trial, including the Micheli Report. And subsequent appeals.

II. Section for the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial w/sections for

  A.  the prosecution,
  B.  the defense,
  C.  the motivation document (Massei Report).

And upcoming appeal. Second potential appeal at the highest court.

Rough sketch, and may need a section or I can bring it up in the General Suggestions section.

Perk10 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this going to add? What value to the reader?  pablo 02:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Perk10, just to help me understand the proposal, are you suggesting the whole article be reformatted along the lines you suggest, or just the parts about the trials? This question aside, one of the editorial problems that are inherent in the subject is that it is very easy to create repetitious text because the same themes come up over and over again. In some of the earlier versions of the article, we tried to base the structure, rather as I think you are suggesting, around the sequence of trials and we ran into exactly that problem. For instance, the (supposedly faked) break-in might be discussed as part of the original police investigation, Guede's trial, the AK/RS prosecution case, their defence case, and the Massei and Micheli reports. No doubt it will also get a mention at the appeal. So we could end up with it being discussed in 6 or 7 parts of the article. The alternative is to take a more thematic approach to the evidence, which is more the way the article is arranged right now. This has its own problems, because the sequence of events is less clear, and it is difficult to discuss the trials, for example, without discussing the evidence presented at them. However, it does cut out the repetition. I don't know what is the best answer, but I do think the overall structure is worth discussing, particularly with the appeals coming up. Bluewave (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting continual U.S. news of Knox

Note to admins: Initially, the article was considered ready-to-delete as "non-notable" and perhaps some imagined "case-closed" in December 2009. However, in the U.S., news segments about Amanda Knox (and sometimes Raffaele Sollecito) have been broadcast on America's main TV networks, every few weeks, all during 2010 (often during the morning national talk-shows). The events, as affecting Amanda Knox, are the big news about the case in the U.S. When her court appeal, as a re-trial, is over, then any news about Guede is unlikely to be noted in the U.S. Many people in Europe finally understand that "Amanda Knox" is the name in the news, every few weeks, in U.S. news reports or TV broadcasts. Similarly in Italy, Amanda Knox was viewed even higher than Carla Bruni. Perhaps if that were stated in the intro to the article, then extensive text about Amanda Knox would no longer be seen as unbalanced-POV about the events. For fairness, discussions about lack of evidence should also include Sollecito, although his DNA was matched to a small sample on the metal bra-clasp, while Guede's DNA matched abundant samples on the severed clasp strap and the rest of the bra (where no DNA matched Sollecito). Only by understanding the extensive U.S. news coverage, about Amanda Knox, can NPOV-neutral text be found. So, "Amanda Knox" has much higher Google hits than "Lee Harvey Oswald" (JFK assassination), "John Wilkes Booth" (shot Lincoln), or serial killers Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The last AfD discussion was 3 months ago. I do not see that much has changed in the intervening period. Quantpole (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"News" implies that she has either done something or that there have been some development in her case(s). Which isn't true. If by "news" you mean "comment and speculation" then there is plenty of that alright.  pablo 08:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

All the guys that Wikid77 mentions have been dead for a long time now, so there's not likely to be much "news" about them at this point, nor much internet gossip. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, on an unrelated page recently an editor tried to make a similar claim, and had it pointed out to him that Wayne Rooney has more Google hits than Winston Churchill, for example. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case, most of the hits on Google for Amanda Knox are our own editors posting on Internet discussion forums. --FormerIP (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I really believe that there is a cultural problem here. To suggest that Amanda Knox is not big news in the U.S. is simply silly. I reject as absurd the idea that only events in which Knox is personally involved are news. When a retired FBI agent writes a series of strong articles and these become the basis for interviews on every network, this is news. I must say with all due respect to Ms. Kercher, Mr. Guede, and even Mr. Sollecito, that they are as close to anonymous in the U.S. as it is possible to be. There are perhaps 200 people in all of the United States who would recognize all three names. If you went around trying to tell people in the U.S. that "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" is a notable event, they would look at you in complete and utter mystification. Mention Amanda Knox, however, and you get a very different reaction and among those who do know something about the case, there is a perception that something is very wrong with the conviction. Black Kite, I don't find your comment very convincing. People are notable because of their place in history (Churchill) or because they are in the news (Rooney). Wikid77's observation is valid.PietroLegno (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there may indeed be a cultural problem. This is not a popularity contest between Knox and Kercher. Knox is notable because of this murder.  pablo 15:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Pietro. Your general statement: "People are notable because of their place in history (Churchill) or because they are in the news (Rooney)." is valid while Wikid's comparison is not and far fetched.TMCk (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

pablo, youre absolutely right, this is not and has never been a popularity contest between Knox and Kercher. Kercher was by all accounts a fine young woman and her murder a horrible thing. I think we can all agree on that. I would add, however, that acknowledging that there is legitimate controversy surrounding the investigation of her murder and the subsequent trails and verdicts is NOT an attack on her or her memory. Tjholme (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't my point; I was merely pointing out that both women are notable because of this murder. There is controversy (legitimate or not) and this is mentioned in this very article. There is absolutely no information about Amanda Knox that deserves a standalone article. She was a honors student, she played football, she liked to pick wild flowers and read Harry Potter. These are some of the vital gems that have been removed from earlier versions of this article, and rightly so, I think.
See also ...  pablo 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)::And IMO the controversy is covered with due weight in the article; But doesn't prevent any editor to make a reasonable proposal for some change.TMCk (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, the OP Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has since been suspended for a month for topic-ban violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Wikid77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is suspended. His observation is valid. This case is notable due to the controversy present by reliable sources. The controversy does not receive the proper weight in this article. Pietro makes a good point...most of the traffic received by this article is due to a redirected search for Amanda Knox. --Lilome (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• In the most recent month of statistics, Amanda Knox received 3,561 hits, whilst this article received 17,154. In the last full month when both articles existed, this article received 43,400 hits to Knox's 5,252. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Cartwheel and splits

The article currently has no mention of Knox performing cartwheels and doing the splits before the Police questioned her, should that be covered, and if so in what detail and section? ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That was discussed before and is simply undue weightTMCk (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is it disputed that she did that? If so who by - the BBC is usually reckoned a pretty reliable source. ϢereSpielChequers 22:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

TMCk didn't say it was disputed, just that it would be undue to include it because it is not an important enough detail. It doesn't appear to have been a strong part of the court case against her, for example. You're free to make a case that it is significant enough to include, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually TMCK just linked to wp:undue which starts "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight"." So I assumed TMCK was saying it was some sort of fringe theory. The BBC has published it so I reckon it passes the test of being a significant viewpoint. Also a quick Google on Knox Cartwheel brings up the Daily Mail whilst this story from The Telegraph, and this from the BBC both headline the cartwheel. If it made it to the headlines of two impeccable sources then IMHo it is worth a mention in the article, I'm not suggesting we put it in the lead paragraph. But I reckon it merits a sentence in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

wp:undue has much more to say. For example: "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.".TMCk (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the editors felt that cartwheels and splits, like kissing her boyfriend or buying thong underwear, while having the appearance of impropriety (to some) , were not in fact evidence of anything and served no other purpose than to unfairly bias public opinion. IMHO cartwheels are oddities that have no probative value and have no place in the MoMK article. Tjholme (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this story has little value to the article; adding it does seem like undue weight to me too. It probably helped to sell a few newspapers though, which is why it's not hard to find on the web.  pablo 01:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Amanda Knox "turned cartwheels" in the police station after the killing, a police witness told a court in Perugia, Italy. Is a BBC report - not some newspaper sensationalism, and this isn't about Knox's choice of underwear which I would agree is irrelevant - this is after the murder when she was waiting to make a statement to the police about the murder of her flatmate. That she was told her behaviour while waiting to give a statement was inappropriate is in my view worthy of mention and more relevant than much of the detail currently in the article. Undue says we "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". I could understand if only one of those sources had picked up on the cartwheel episode then there might be an argument that this was such an "isolated events, criticisms, or news report". But this was covered not just by the BBC but by the mail and the Telegraph, msnbc, abc, the Mirror, The Sun USA Today even the Guardian mentions it. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What specific change do you propose to the article then?  pablo 07:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There's currently one section about Amanda Knox and another about the Police interviews. I think the most logical place to add this would be in the latter section. I'll draft something on this page in the next day or so, it might be possible to do it in one sentence. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

More specific, please. What exact line would you like to insert and what is the significance of it ? What is it adding to the article ? I'm having a problem wrapping my pea sized brain around this. Previously, the fact that a given event was reported, even in numerous WP:RS, has not in itself been enough to warrant it's inclusion in this article. Many lurid rumors have been reported by many papers as 'important fact'. As Pablo said, they sold quite a few papers. If we're going to start throwing in this kind of un-evidence then we'd better open a new thread cause we have a lot of previously passed over solid evidence from people like Moore and Tramontano that we need to be rediscussing IMO Tjholme (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Tjholme - he does say he'll draft it in a couple of days, chill. Moore has opinions rather than evidence, Tramontano's testimony already gets a mention.
@ WereSpielChequers - I wasn't doubting the validity of the sources, of which many are impeccable, just questioning the addition itself.  pablo 13:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hahahaha! Duly chilled. Tjholme (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No "hahaha" for me. I have to crank my A/C way up almost all year arround to be "chilled", though I compensate with chilled drinks which are less expensive and way more pleasant :)) TMCk (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tjholme wrote:"What is it adding to the article?" which puts my comments about due or undue weight into perspective. But let's wait for WSCh to draft and propose what s/he has in mind and go from there.TMCk (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@TMCk - Agreed on WSCh. As to the heat, happy to trade you some Seattle cold n wet.. we didnt even get a summer this year. Tjholme (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No way I'll trade my warm sunny weather for a cold snowing mess! I's rather put up with hurricanes. XD --TMCk (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It will take a lot of persuading for me to think that this suggestion is anything but tendentious. Even if we stipulate that Amanda was turning cartwheels like an acrobat at the circus (and she clearly was not), it means nothing. I have serious reservations about the way that the article is written, but one thing I appreciate is that there has been some effort to avoid gratuitous character assassination. Now someone wants to reintroduce it. Sigh. This bit about cartwheels should be pitched into the trash bin of history along with non-existent bleach receipts and Harry Potter books and tendentious arguments about when the police did or did not arrive. None of it matters. We should be focusing on the real evidence. Even if one views Amanda's conduct rather severely this is not in the least proof she did anything. It amounts to saying "she's weird and therefore she might be a killer"--an absurd leap if ever there was one. If the talk about cartwheels gets serious then I am going to want to balance things by adding material that casts Amanda's behavior in more sympathetic light. Let's not go there. The cartwheels discussion is one for the books, not an encyclopedia article.PietroLegno (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I think describing what appears to be a genuine query as "tendentious" is unfair, I'd agree that this is the sort of tangental detail that editors here have spent a lot of time trying to remove from the article to focus on the important facts. Only my 2 cents; if there's consensus it needs to be mentioned, so be it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess I've already made my point clear regarding the "cartwheels and splits" but to make sure I'd like to point out again that those are way undue and are of no value to the article at all. Quite the opposite IMO.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pietro: I agree with most of what you wrote above, but would ask you to consider as well how this relates to WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not journalism, nor is it a news review. It would be WP:UNDUE (in my opinion) to give too much coverage to media hype surrounding this case. We should mention significant media portrayals of the case, but with a sense of proportion. But this applies equally whether the hype is associated with the vilification of the defendants or with the thesis that Italy is a backwards nation and our blue-eyed gal has been convicted on the basis of "no evidence". I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment that the article should concentrate on what is important about the case a prune the rest. However, to achieve this would require a balanced approach - it is not currently possible, I think, whilst editors insist that any argument in defence of Knox made by the defence or raised in any publication should be featured regardless of how significant it is. --FormerIP (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this one of those rare instances where we're all kind of agreeing on something? I think we might have a.. a.. what was that word? Oh yeah.. consensus. =) Tjholme (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Separate Amanda Knox page

Hey guys, I tried to ctrl+f and also skim through all the comments on the this page to see if this had been addressed, but I couldn't find it. Why don't Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher both have their own separate wikipedia page in conjunction with this page of the murder? This happens for almost all other cases like this and/or serial killer pages as well. Take for example Joran van der Sloot. BEFORE the case of the second Peruvian girl even existed, there was still a separate page for him, and a page of the murder/girl. Why isn't this the case for the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case as well? Knox and Sollecito should have their own page, Rudy Guedge I can understand not having his own. Meredith Kercher should also have her own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.0.201 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox and try skimming the archives.TMCk (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, unsigned. It's an issue that's come up more than once along with the suggestion to split off an article about The Trials of AK & RS.. The issue tends to split the editors into two camps. So far the NO camp has managed to block the creations but the YES camp is gaining momentum and numbers. The AfD archives are an interesting read, especially in that some NO editor(s) actually stated they could see the day when a "Trials Of" article might be useful.. Were working toward that day.. apparently not there yet, though.Tjholme (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find that those proposals were rejected by the wider community at Articles For Deletion, not just editors involved here. And yet again, you're splitting editors into two POV camps ("the NO camp has managed to block the creations") where in reality the issues are directly linked to Wikipedia policy, not what any editor's own opinions are. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to ask certain editors here not to do that, please; this is supposed to be a collaborative environment, not a battlefield. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Joran van der Sloot now has more justification as a separate article, with regard to WP:ONEEVENT, since he has been implicated in a second criminal case. In response to the OP's arguments, it would follow that a serial killer, having been convicted of more than one murder, surpasses the one-event guideline. At this time, the status of Amanda Knox (i.e. someone who is not a serial murderer) and her fellow convicts is more or less inextricable from the Murder of Meredith Kercher case, a view largely endorsed at June's AfD discussion. Furthermore, an individual Meredith Kercher article would be quite superfluous — it is her murder for which Kercher is notable, not other events in her life (i.e. her full biography), hence a page titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" complies better with Wikipedia guidelines. Finally, to reply to Tjholme, it is important to remember that Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus rather than a popular vote. That the so-called "Yes camp" is "gaining momentum and numbers" has little impact. SuperMarioMan 19:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a prejudice against SPA's accounts but I think it's reasonable to be suspicious depending on their edits (likewise I judge established users who suddenly come to an article - not talking about this one - and make one or more highly POV edits, one way or another). Of course I still assume good faith even if it doesn't show at times but that's my editing style for everyone to feel and they either can accept it or complain at the approbate venue if they feel like it.

This (constantly repeated) case with similar arguments made before don't give me much confidence as just being raised by a new IP-editor although I responded by pointing to an AFD and suggested skimming the archives for some more info instead of just ignoring their inquire and by know they're given some more information which they can work with.TMCk (talk) 19:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Black Kite - As the 'certain editor' in question let me respond that I was asked not to poison the water by referring to the nationalist pov split that exists between the editors -v- admins, and I didnt. However, in the AfD review editors/admin clearly respond in the manner "KEEP" or "DELETE", That tends to split the group into two defacto camps.. those that want to keep and those that want to delete. Tjholme (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is that at AfD there are a majority of editors who are completely unfamiliar with the article, and so they aren't bringing any previous baggage, viewpoints or biases to the debate, but merely evaluating the question with regard to Wikipedia policy. Thus, it's a little unfair to piegonhole them into a "Yes camp" and a "No camp"; indeed if the question was ever to arise again, some may comment differently if they believed that the situation had changed, rather than "vote" in some sort of bloc. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Enough of that pro-guilt/innocent nonsense. The next editor that should dare to mention such, incl. guilters/non-guilters and similar should be blocked for disruption for no less than a week. That's my opinion on it!TMCk (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I think that Tjholme above just phrased his response to the IP a bit poorly. But in general, I think the best way to go with editors who attack others by accusing them of POV editing with no justification is one warning and then escalating blocks. Eventually we will end up at a point where the remaining editors, despite having conflicting opinions, can edit collegially with each other. I'm going to move MLauba's previous note to the bottom of this page and tweak it a bit. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• That would a dream come true (after almost one year).TMCk (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Keeping this page Civil

Adapted from a previous posting by admin User:MLauba.

Editors of this article are reminded of a few core rules governing Wikipedia: Our purpose is to present an encyclopedic article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher. As such we provide the reader with the known facts: A crime happened, an investigation was conducted, a trial was held, a media controversy exists, appeals have been filed. It is not our purpose to convince the reader that the verdict was right or wrong, that the trial was just or slanted, or that the forensics were sufficient or deficient. Similarly, our purpose is not to sow doubt in the reader or give him the means to play armchair CSI. Excessive details detract from an encyclopedic coverage; such excess has, in the past, led to an article that was an endless list of continuous refutations, a he said / she said debate that was devoid of value to the uninformed reader, as well as devoid of value to the partisan reader as they - regardless of their opinions - would invariably estimate that the opposing arguments were given too much prominence.

Bearing that in mind, please remember to:

• assume good faith: honest disagreement is not only possible but healthy, and doesn't indicate that someone disagreeing with you is part of a hostile faction out to paint guilt or innocence.
• Our policies on coverage of living persons are very strict for good reasons. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate who did it and propose theories of what could likely have happened. If reliable sources have proposed something, we can echo that point of view (provided we don't give it undue weight). Original research, speculation and synthesis are prohibited - Wikipedia cannot and will not tolerate postings, even on talk pages, that could be construed as libel.
• Sources usually considered as reliable aren't so in all circumstances. An opinion expressed on a talk show or an interview, even aired on CNN, is typically not subjected to fact-checking and editorial control and does not qualify as reliable in this context.
• Don't attack other editors. Argue the points, don't throw around accusations, and accept that it will have to be a give and take. When possible, don't hesitate to propose new wording, but for practical reasons, keep them manageable.
• And remember that Wikipedia's role is not to right great wrongs, nor even to find the Truth(tm) - we only report what can be verified.

This page has suffered from a toxic editing climate for nearly a year. Nonetheless, it is important that all parties take a deep breath before posting, and if they feel so passionate that they cannot concede an argument no matter the strength of consensus against them, it may be time to take a step back and perhaps work on other articles. Editors who give in to the temptation to attack others, whether individually or as a group, risk having their editing privileges suspended.

Given this;

• Don't assign viewpoints to other editors unless they have admitted them themselves. For example, if an editor has posted that they believe a defendant to be guilty/innocent, then it is fair to comment on it; otherwise, just don't. This has been the principal issue here so far, and it is the one that has led to a number of editors being blocked.
• If you have an opinion on something in the article, don't claim that anyone who doesn't agree with something you've posted is automatically part of a group with an opposite viewpoint.
• Respond to criticism, and do so civilly. If a number of editors disagree with you, explain why you believe they are wrong in a calm manner; don't ignore them and carry on repeating your claims, however wrong you believe they may be. Editors who do this are very difficult to edit collegially with.
• Don't suggest massive changes to the article in one go. It isn't ever going to happen on an article this contentious; suggest changes one small section at a time, and let each of those changes be discussed. The article is protected at the moment, and therefore changes must be made through {{editprotected}}; nevertheless this is good editing practice at all times.
• It is always useful to search the archives for issues that may have come up before; you may find your suggestion or idea has previously been discussed.
• A reliable source isn't a reliable source because you say it is; bring it here for discussion if it is likely to be contentious.
• If you want to add a minor detail to the article, consider whether WP:UNDUE applies before submitting it, or ask here first

Black Kite (t) (c) 23:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• It realy would be nice and productive if users would follow this advise. Whoever doesn't should be blocked starting with a 24 hour minimum (depending of their previoes block log and be raised by at least one week for their secound violation, one month after the third and indeffed (with the option of appeal as usual) any further violation. Also evey editor already commenting here and new editors should get a message with such warning. We don't need any Arbcom or other venue to apply such restrictions like an official probation) as WP is "not" a birocracyt So if we can get a consensus here that should work for all parties involved, including any future party.So let's make a Wiki-"vote" and see if we can get consesus for such measure.TMCk (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you support the above proposal (please state a reason):

(Sample "vote": Support (reason) (sign)

"Do you reject the above proposal (please state a reason):"

(Sample "vote": Oppose (reason) (sign)

"Neutral, not sure or other (please state your reason)."

(Sample "vote": (reason) (sign)

("Votes" are decided by argument, not by majority).TMCk (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC))