Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Amanda Knox monthly on U.S. networks' Evening news

I have been trying to emphasize this issue, for the past year, Amanda Knox has appeared (in video replay) almost every month on the top U.S. TV networks' evening-news broadcasts. The flood of American users comes with those broadcasts, not as a coordinated "attack by an advocacy group". The U.S. news reports rarely mention the victim "Meredith Kercher" nor Sollecito, and the focus often gives the impression that Amanda Knox is being re-tried alone, rather than the actual "joint" appellate trial with Raffaele Sollecito ("So-Lay-cha-to"). I wanted to explain the U.S. "evening news" in other terms: who is the equivalent of news anchors Brian Williams or Lester Holt or Katie Couric in the UK TV networks, or Canadian TV, or German TV or Italian TV? We already noted several sources stating Amanda Knox was a bigger TV personality in Italy during 2009 than Carla Bruni, due to televised excerpts of the court proceedings. Most of the U.S. interest in Amanda Knox comes from nation-wide TV broadcasts, not from some advocacy sites planning to flood WP with edits. The recent TV movie (and controversial responses from the Knox family, Kercher and Sollecito families) gave Amanda Knox added individual notability for the 2-hour film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy (broadcast Feb. 21, 2011 at 9 pm EST). These are U.S. nationwide TV broadcasts, not bloggers seeking support. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that one of the principal objectives of this post is to highlight the need for an individual Knox article: there is rather little preventing interested editors from planning such a biography in their userspace, or indeed going ahead with a full biography in the mainspace. As much as there have been claims on this talk page and at other venues that the simple concept of such a biography has been shunned, the greatest failing of all attempts at a biography to date - I would argue - has been a refusal to understand that a true biography (note the emphasis and continued use of this noun) must establish Knox's own individual notability both in a neutral tone and in a context that goes beyond her involvement in the Kercher case. Wikid, please forgive me for bringing this up, but do you understand that the resurrection of the Amanda Knox link would entail excluding from the article, for example, such content as that which has dominated some of your own efforts in the last 12 months? However, I do admit that the reasoning of WP:BLP1E that has gone against the continued existence of a separate page in previous discussions on this subject is perhaps now not as forceful as in the past. SuperMarioMan 05:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no very strong view on this particular case but wanted to re-emphasize a good point that SuperMarioMan puts forward here: BLP1E considerations push us to ask whether there is enough independent material to write an actual biography of Amanda Knox, separate from the material in this article. It's important not to create a POV fork, etc. I do not know if there is sufficient standalone material for such an article.

If Amanda Knox is released on appeal, and goes on to prominence for other things, then of course eventually there could be an article. Or, if there is enough material about her life that doesn't really belong here, then there could be an article today. Is there?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Doing a Google search for Amanda Knox there are 8,670,000 results, a search for Meredith Kercher gets 298,000 results. People are searching for 'Amanda Knox' and being directed to this site. This is one of the top news stories of the decade and deserves to have its own article. The Amanda Knox Trial is the MAIN story. The question at hand is if the verdict was right and an entire article should discuss this controversy alone. The murder of Meredith Kercher itself has little to add. The current article does not go into the controversial trial nearly enough. It is surprising and strange that Wikipedia does not have an article with 'Amanda Knox' in the title. I suggest a new article - The Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito Trials or Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Issymo (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Probably. There are even numerous news reports of her personal activities, while incarcerated, including continuing with college classes by correspondance, plus ongoing interviews, the civil suit which she won to stop Italian publication of Fiorenza Sarzanini's book Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others"), the confiscation of her prison diaries, the false report of her being HIV-positive later retracted as being HIV-negative, her increased fluency of Italian (long talks with cellmates & prison officials), fan mail received in prison, writing letters to friends, each birthday-in-prison event, playing guitar in prison groups, changing her hairstyles, choice of clothes worn in court, and her interactions with other inmates. Those activities might not seem as dramatic as first-degree felonies, but many reporters have been able to print articles about those events. If there are 2 WP:RS sources for each event, then I would consider them significant to include in her bio-page text. -Wikid77 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that Amanda Knox remains under full protection, I've struck through a small part of my comment - mainspace inclusion of a biographical article would indeed require wider discussion at this talk page. With regard to the one-event guidelines, Knox would appear to represent something of a borderline case. Of course, in light of the appeals and media such as the TV film, it could certainly be argued that, as a biographical subject, she no longer relates to a single event. However, the flipside of the coin could assert that since the original murder of Meredith Kercher effectively entails all of the above, a separate BLP is still not merited. (Similar arguments can be, and have been, offered in response to a number of proposals to rename this article "Trial of Amanda Knox" - however, the murder predates the trial(s).) The rationale for having no individual biography also encompasses BLP concerns, which include the potential for such an article to be a magnet for vandalism and a platform for activism (the reasoning behind the current full protection). SuperMarioMan 08:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The BLP1E criteria have not applied to Know for at least a couple of years. The policy states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.

Element One: Single Event

It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted before, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and , yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them. Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie. She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.

Element Two: Low Profile

Even if you define a single event so broadly as to exclude many BLPs on Wikipedia, the second element of the test is not met. Knox has not kept a low profile. Her parents still routinely give interviews which are covered not only by reliable sources, but the national (US) press. She has a movie about her. She is the subject of biographical books. She remains a high-profile individual even years after the murder, and with new books and shows still coming out about her, it would be impossible to state that she is "likely to remain a low profile individual."LedRush (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The real problem here is that until anyone agrees in concept to a Knox article, it seems like a waste of time to try and develop one.LedRush (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the focus of this subject has moved on since the murder in 2007. This case is now an international phenomenon and Wikipedia should reflect this. Narrowly focusing on the case misses the broader picture. The reason that it has become notorious is because so much of the evidence is disputed, false and/or irrelevant, for example, the point about footprints in blood being found in the flat was withdrawn by the prosecution's forensic scientist Stefanoni, since tests for blood were negative but this information was initially withheld from the court. The role of the media in painting and sustaining a guilty picture to an unsequestered jury also needs more space. Wikipedia should explain that advocates of innocence are not merely questioning the evidence but are asking why such an unbelievable case was ever allowed to proceed, who is hoping to gain from it and why a prosecutor who is himself indicted for abuse of office should have been put in charge and even now remains in the prosecution team. NigelPScott (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am thinking the controversy about the luminol-revealed footprints was that they nested negative for Kercher's DNA, but I don't think test-for-blood actions could be documented, and anyway the prosecution withheld that evidence, from the defense (until the July-2009 court break), for longer than the normal legal time limit in Italy. Plus similar instances of controversial details have made the Knox/Sollecito trial become WP:UNDUE-balance text, to be moved into a subarticle dedicated to the "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" as (valid) content-fork (not a "POV-fork" - see WP:FORK). -Wikid77 13:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There's also WP:CRIME to consider. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

CRIME doesn't seem to apply either. There are no existing articles which can devote the necessary encyclopedic content about the person, Amanda Knox. Any attemp to expand the current article to include biographical content would result in WP:UNDUE, and is generally resisted by the editors here anyway. Furthermore, it assumes that the person is notable only for committing the crime (the same as BLP1E above). The arguments above has centered around the idea that Knox is now famous for more than that.LedRush (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Amanda Knox is notable and deserves her own article. It never even occurred to me that there wouldn't be one now. This is not merely due to the TV movie about her, or the international actions on her behalf. I regard her as notable because she is facing six years in prison for saying that Italian cops smacked her on the head, and because she couldn't pick them out from among those officers whom the Italian police department chose to show her. They even prosecuted her parents for saying she'd been abused! This kind of extreme criminal libel prosecution of people alleging police brutality convinces me that brutality must be almost ubiquitous in Italy, because no one knowing the system would dare try to speak up the way that she did. This is an issue entirely apart from the murder case. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The separate article for Amanda Knox was redirected to MoMK because there seemed to be a lack of individual notability, before the controversial film was broadcast by Lifetime (TV network) on Feb. 21, 2011. -Wikid77 27 March, 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanda has remained the main focus in all of this, to media, forums, and all. Raffaele, has had controversy in these things, but never at the deep extent as her. Meredith has became lost in this horrific battle, and well Rudy.. is sneaking right out of any light shined upon him in this.In fact, imagine the truth here, he will serve a simple 6 years for this horrific crime, when all is said and done. --Truth Mom (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

However, if Knox/Sollecito are acquitted, and Guede is judged to have acted alone (such as "he had to return to the scene, to see did she really die or live to tell" and then did a partial cleanup). I would think the lone-wolf scenario might affect his parole chances, so are there any sources we could quote about how inmates are paroled in Italy? -Wikid77 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

User-space draft bio page about Amanda Knox

23-March-2011: After months of discussions about creating a NPOV-neutral, balanced bio page for American student Amanda Knox, I have created a user-space draft:
   • User:Wikid77/Amanda Knox - draft bio page (set _NOINDEX__ as omitted by search engines)
That user-space draft (which is not searchable by either Google Search or Yahoo! Search or Bing.com: see option "_NOINDEX_" in Help:Magic words) has been advised, by the involved admins, as a place to start to consider re-creating a main-space bio page article about Amanda Knox. If consensus can be gained about contents, as having an NPOV-neutral balance, in that draft page, then an article would be more likely. Please feel free to edit that page, and if approved, it would be moved (along with merging the entire editing history) into Wikipedia main namespace for articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you have done this. Such a page would be in direct violation of WP:BLP1E. I cannot possibly see the community supporting it's existence.Griswaldo (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Strawman argument Griswaldo.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see the BLP1E arguments brandied about because they clearly don't apply here (and people rarely respond to any such proof). As I wrote above:

The BLP1E criteria have not applied to Know for at least a couple of years. The policy states: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.

Element One: Single Event

It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted before, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and , yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them. Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie. She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.

Element Two: Low Profile

Even if you define a single event so broadly as to exclude many BLPs on Wikipedia, the second element of the test is not met. Knox has not kept a low profile. Her parents still routinely give interviews which are covered not only by reliable sources, but the national (US) press. She has a movie about her. She is the subject of biographical books. She remains a high-profile individual even years after the murder, and with new books and shows still coming out about her, it would be impossible to state that she is "likely to remain a low profile individual."LedRush (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "event" is currently ongoing. There is only one event. The murder of Meredith Kercher, of which Knox is accused and now standing trial for. If, after the trials are over she sustains notability then write a biography of her, by all means. But you can't point to ongoing coverage of an event that has not concluded as proof of lasting notability. Knox currently fits BLP1E to the letter, and we wont know otherwise until the event finishes:

• Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

BLP1E is not being "bandied about". As I stated already I cannot possibly see the community agreeing, at this time, that she qualifies for her own biography. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the entire second prong of the BLP1E. Knox is not a low profile individual, and she certainly will not "remain" one. Even if your arguments on the one-event are right (and they are clearly not), there is no way that BLP1E can possibly apply here, and it is disheartening to see so many ignore essential parts of WP policy.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I support the development of this draft. Caught between WP:UNDUE and a tight reading of WP:BLP1E are many encyclopedia-worthy Reliable Sources. Let's make the draft as comprehensive as possible; I can't see how phenomenal level of coverage of Knox doesn't belong somewhere. Ocaasi ^c 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can. WP:NOTNEWS. The key is enduring coverage which is very difficult to ascertain, again, when something is still news. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you've still ignored the text of BLP1E, and movies, documentaries and books are generally not considered news.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently had a similar discussion over an image of Khaled Saeed which was described in hundreds of RS surrounding the Egyptian revolution, but some questioned whether it was definitely historic yet, or just news (the sources describe it as historic, today, of course that could fade or change). I think cases where the 'news' coverage is prolific, or where the claims made in the coverage are specific to the subject and consistently bold, that News becomes Encyclopedic. These events may have some of the feel of court-blotter/tabloid as they are rehashed over and over, but the sheer amount of coverage has transformed what was only a news event into a cultural phenomenon of its own, with its own collateral mini-events. Either these can be covered at the main article (which seems to insult Kercher's legacy) or they can be part of a Knox article (which leans on BLP1E). That we can't find a great place for them doesn't mean they shouldn't be somewhere. And that they are still 'newsy' doesn't mean they're also not encyclopedic. It's a gray area at least, and I'm not sure why a draft which presents the alternative idea shouldn't be brought forth for discussion. Ocaasi ^c 18:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what is going on right now? It is being discussed?Griswaldo (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, not really, since your comments were that it's wrong even before the draft is finished. I think we should at least finish the draft before discussing whether or not it is appropriate. How else can we compare its content and scope to policy? Ocaasi ^c 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would Support an article for Amanda Knox. She even got a TV-film about her in particular. She is the main person even trumpng Meredith Kercher herself in this story. I would strongly advice that we start a article for Amanda.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo is into Strawman arguments I can tell. He refuses to see the many things that points to Knox having her own article. Its so obvious that Knox has reached beyond being simply an accomplice in a possible murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also obvious that you've never met an article that you didn't !vote to keep. We all have our own particular faults and points of view, but let's not let that get in the way of the actual subject here.

Personally, I'm not too sure here. In all honesty, what can be said about Ms. Knox that will not be in connection to this case? Some basic "she was born in...", "she went to school at..." stuff? It most certainly cannot be turned into some sort of advocacy platform for her alleged innocence. We really need to take stock of just what WP:BLP1E, WP:EVENT, and WP:CRIME are meant to address here. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, the problem is that in no reading of BLP1E can a Knox article be excluded (she's not a low profile person). Crime is similarly not applicable, though admittedly less clearly. (Please see above for more extensive points and references to policies). Finally, I'm nor sure I've heard a WP:EVENT argument on this before, but it seems pretty obvious that it doesn't apply here either.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't really happen to agree with your BLP1E interpretation, particularly the low-profile aspect which has more to do with the intentions of the subject herself rather than of those around her, i.e. parents giving interviews is irrelevant to her profile. This person is a convicted criminal, and crimes routinely receive a degree of coverage in the media, especially and obviously the sensational ones. If every criminal involved in a notable crime were deemed "high-profile", thus getting them past the BLP1E hurdle, that would render WP:CRIME as it applies to perpetrators essentially meaningless. Read what is written there; "A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person." That is far and away enough of a reason to keep "Amanda Knox" as a redirect to the current article. Tarc (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a "Trial of Amanda Knox" article, or something of that nature might not be warranted. As in, something split out of this entry. But I just don't see a bio being warranted. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, I think that is a very suitable alternative, and could avoid a pseudobiography issue, if there is one. We could call it whatever fits, as long as we can cover all of the encyclopedic RS. Ocaasi ^c 20:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would think that a biographical article would include some ("she was born in...", "she went to school at..." stuff), but it would also include much more on the other trials she's been in, the media reaction to the trial(s), the public perceptions of Knox, the coverage in fiction and non-fiction books/movies and other activities. All of these topics are glossed over here as they cannot be included without introducing WP:UNDUE concerns. As we seen many times before, these types of articles are very common in this type of situation. Of course, a biographical article would have to be neutral and not be a content fork (as the previous (and horrible) "article" was on both accounts). But, if done correctly, it could take some pressure off of this article to cover topics which clearly don't belong in a "Murder of Meredith Kurcher" article.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

As we seen many times before, these types of articles are very common in this type of situation. Out of curiosity what is a comparable entry?Griswaldo (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal: I'll give you a list of a few prominent ones after you respond to my arguments regarding BLP1E et al, above. (Hint, the list has been produced on these pages before).LedRush (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Notability due to persistent coverage in films/books: The main reason Amanda Knox has individual notability is due to the "persistent" wider coverage, beyond just the news reports, as being the subject of films, documentaries, and several books: the U.S. TV film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy is presented as based on a true story, and at the end of the film, it displays a message that Knox's parents have been indicted for criminal slander in Italy, as facing up to 3 years in prison (which refers to the real parents). As for "waiting for the news to be over", there must be a "statute of limitations" in claiming all reports are "news" because experts have advised that if Amanda Knox is acquitted of the murder/assault (transporting a knife, and staging a crime scene), there are likely to be follow-on "news" stories of people protesting that she got away, or months later, someone claiming to have found new evidence to convict if they can be paid to appear in the Italian media. When it comes to notable awards, then Knox was awarded the civil suit judgment for 40,000 euros ($55,000) for privacy violation against the publication of the book Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others" based on her prison diaries) by a well-known reporter for Corriere della Sera. Plus, she is also indicted for another felony crime: of criminal slander against the Perugia police. So, although not being accused as a "serial killer", such is accused of 2 separate crimes as a "serial felon", and hence WP:BLP1E no longer applies if 2 felony crimes are charged, years apart. Hence, the user-space draft is intended to seek balanced, NPOV-neutral coverage about her life, rather than prove notability. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's obviously a concern about having coverage of Amanda Knox overshadow coverage of Meredith Kercher, the way it has in the real world. This is a sad event no matter what happened, and we should try not to see Wikipedia as extending further injustice either way. It's simply true that the coverage of Knox has vastly exceeded that or Kercher; a tactful way to separate the two is to give Knox her own article. As an encyclopedia, we cannot resolve the issue by limiting the coverage of Knox on Kercher's article if RS present a more comprehensive case. Ocaasi ^c 21:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that such a move might create a POV fork of the article or be used as justification to let this article remain slanted. The views of Knox and Sollecito's lawyers as well as the sources supporting the innocence of Knox and Sollecito must be fairly presented on this article and not minimalized. They barely exist here as it is, and when they do they are written in such a way as to leave no doubt that the people who wrote the article disagree. I personally do not think there is anything about Knox other than this case, so anything about Knox needs to be mentioned here. DreamGuy (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think a BIO page is necessary but would like to see a new article that is centered on the controversial Trial and Conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. News about this case is centered on whether this was a wrongful conviction or not. Doing a Google search for Amanda Knox there are 8,670,000 results, a search for Meredith Kercher gets 298,000 results. People are searching for 'Amanda Knox' and being directed to this site. This is one of the top news stories of the decade and deserves to have its own article. The Amanda Knox Trial is the MAIN story. The question at hand is if the verdict was right and an entire article should discuss this controversy alone. The current article does not go into the controversial trial nearly enough. Wikipedia should add a new article about the controversial trial and conviction that has 'Amanda Knox' in the title. I suggest a new article - The Amanda Knox and Raffael Sollecito Trials or Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.Issymo (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• We absolutely do not need a new article about the controversial trial. All of that should be incorporated into this article. If this article acts like there is no controversy or minimizes this very noteworthy aspect it would be (and currently is) a violation of WP:NPOV. DreamGuy (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another option would be to rename this article The Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollectio Trial or something similar. The title Murder of Meredith Kercher puts the emphasis on the murder, when in reality there is far more information and interest in the trial and conviction. The trial is where the largest controversy exists and the current title doesn't reflect that. I would either create a new page or rename this one to more accurately reflect what people want to learn about when they do a search. Issymo (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• I should mention that I just merged in the old Amanda Knox to the userpage draft. There's lots of biography there, and I think it only scratches the surface. I didn't even add anything about her parents yet, which belongs there, with their own charges against them, etcetera. This should be moved to Amanda Knox, but should administrators fail to do the right thing, then "Trial of Amanda Knox" or the like could be used strictly as a work around. From the last case I saw of this, Arrest of Bradley Manning (now at Bradley Manning) I have no doubt that putting words in front of the biography name is not the best thing for BLP purposes and improperly limits the article scope, but the point is, if deletionists are just going to recite off a bunch of policies like NOTNEWS and BLP1E and UNDUE and so forth, using each one to say exactly the opposite of what it says, then people just have to look around for an unblocked name and take it, even if they have to resort to a random series of letters and numbers. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep adding to the draft. -Wikid77 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any way we could create a separate article for Amanda Knox and be following Wikipedia policies. Like it or not, she has no notability at all except for the topic this article already covers. Any inadequacy with the coverage of that topic needs to be addressed here, not on a separate article. I do agree, however, with the above comments that it is not the murder that is notable but the related trials, so perhaps the article could be renamed. I do not think it needs to be, however.DreamGuy (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless it became NPOV or a content fork, there is no way that a Wikipedia article could contravene WP policies. No objection I've seen based on actual WP policy even passes the smell test.LedRush (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy. The article should be about the case, with a focus on the court and media. (Many documentaries, films, and books mean the case is more notable, of which she is a part. Perk10 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I also agree. So far, Amanda Knox is only notable for her involvement in this murder. Just as Tim Masters is only notable for his involvement in the Peggy Hettrick murder case. As in that case, the redirect from the suspect's name leads readers to the right place. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We can probably fine precedents on both sides. But to me the best precedent among recent cases is the Scott Peterson case. He was scarcely notable before his conviction and yet Wikipedia has an article on his trial. There is also a separate page on Laci Peterson. In my view, it is the highly controversial nature of the trial that warrants the separation. Were Sacco & Vanzetti "notable" in and of themselves? PietroLegno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

• Keep adding to the draft. -Wikid77 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Creating a detailed timeline with sources

There is concern that a condensed timeline of events be sourced to secondary-source descriptions to support notability of the details, as noted in WP page section (about needing secondary sources):

• WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

For that reason, footnotes linked to the Massei Motivations report should also be backed by footnotes to other reliable sources of those events (and there are, indeed, many news reports which include some of the events). Note that the exact time is not critical, but rather the significance of events is the issue, as whether those events were important enough to be noted in other sources: for example, if a source reports that someone called someone else, then that event can be sourced to that report, using the Massei timestamp.
If a particular time of an event is disputed, then that should be discussed on the talk-page, with a {{underdiscussion-inline|Topicname}} tag (showing: ), to alert readers to the discussion at talk-page topic #Topicname. The suggested timeline is below, to be expanded for significant events, plus extra footnote sources to be added. We know many users have expressed an interest in the timeline, it just needs to meet the formatting policies about source footnotes. -Wikid77 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed detailed timeline

Below is the proposed timeline (explained above, under: #Creating a detailed timeline with sources). Please edit the timeline, in this section, to add more source footnotes on lines where only Massei, as "[1]" or "[3]" is footnoted (do not delete the Massei numbers, just add more footnotes).

---

• 20:18:12 Amanda Knox receives a text message (sms) from manager Lumumba telling her not to come to work that night
• 20:35:48 Amanda sends text message (sms) reply to Patrick Lumumba, turns off phone a bit later.
• 20:42:56 (221 seconds) Sollecito receives phone call from his father.
• 20:55 Kercher friend Sophie arrives home after leaving Kercher walking along street
• 21:00 Kercher returns to flat after seeing DVD film with friends (estimated time)
• 22:00 Kercher UK mobile phone dials her London bank but wrong prefix code prevents call
• 22:13 Kercher's UK mobile phone receives call (unanswered) through another mobile station
• 22:25 Rudy Guede states that he left Meredith dying around this time and went home along backstreets
• 22:30–23:00 Kercher dies about this time (according to pathologist at trial)
• 06:02:59 Sollecito mobile phone receives text message (sms) sent by his father at 23:41
• 11:38 Phone brought to Postal Police is traced to Filomena R.
• 11:50 Postal police record that Lana B. and daughter (called) say they do not know this Filomena
• 12:00? Postal police are called by Lana's daughter, who reports finding phone #2 (UK) in garden
• 12:07:12 (duration 16 seconds) Amanda calls English number of Kercher
• 12:08:44 (68 seconds) Amanda calls Filomena (about door open & blood spots)
• 12:11:02 (3 seconds) Amanda calls Italian phone of Kercher, call forwarded to voicemail.
• 12:11:54 (4 seconds) Amanda calls Kercher UK phone again
• 12:12:35 (36 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda
• 12:20:44 (65 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda again
• 12:34:56 (48 seconds) Filomena R. calls Amanda.
• 12:35 Two postal police arrive outside the flat (time claimed in Guede trial)^{[contested in court]}
• 12:40 (67 seconds) Sollecito receives call from his father.
• 12:46 Postal police station logs receipt of mobile phone #2 (Meredith's UK phone) delivered by neighbor's daughter
• 12:47:23 (88 seconds) Amanda calls her mother in Seattle.
• 12:50:34 (39 seconds) Sollecito calls his sister in the Carabinieri, a different branch of the Italian police
• 12:51:40 (169 seconds) Sollecito calls "112" to report theft
• 12:54 (57 seconds) Sollecito calls "112" again,
• bef.13:00 Two postal police arrive outside flat (before others), meet Knox/Sollecito who talk of broken glass and blood^{[time decided in court]}
• 13:00 Filomena R. and her friends arrive at the flat. Kercher's door is forced and victim's body discovered shortly afterwards.

Notes

---

The above timeline should be edited, by anyone, to add more source footnotes, if needed. Thanks. -Wikid77 19:23, 28 March 2011, revised 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some things that I don't understand about this timeline. To begin with, how did Filomena's phone get mixed up in this, at 11:38? Or was she traced as a caller, and it's actually one of Amanda's phones? And who called who at 11:50 - the police to Lana or vice versa? Also (more generally) is there a plausible means by which Kercher, if she had called her bank with the right prefix, could have directed an immediate payment to someone holding her at knifepoint? Is a British bank open at 22:00 in Italy? Did she have lots of money in an account there? Wnt (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Both Meredith and Amanda had their national home phones (such as Meredith to UK), but both were loaned Italian phones, with 1st housemate Filomena R. providing an Italian phone to Meredith, and 2nd housemate Laura M. providing an Italian phone to Amanda. When the postal police arrived they were asking about Filomena's loaned phone, and Knox/Sollecito could have replied that she was not there and try somewhere else. Knox testified that she called Meredith's UK phone as the first call (ringing 16 sec.), because she said Meredith "always" carried that phone expecting calls about her ill mother in England, so Knox called Meredith's Italian phone later. Knox/Sollecito turned off their own phones c.8:45 the previous evening (per Knox testimony), but whoever took Meredith's phones left the phones running, and the various cell towers on the hillsides logged the activity of moving phones. Lana called the police, after the "bomb scare" thinking phone #1 could be the detonator. Meredith's bank phone# was the first number in her auto-dial list, activated just by re-pushing buttons. We could add this explanation near the timeline, because note how little text is needed to clarify all these points. Thanks for noting the confusion of phone ownership. -Wikid77 23:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there are serious errors with the timeline: 1) Meredith arrived home at about 9:00 PM--not 9:15. CF Candace Dempsey page 49. We pretty much reached consensus on this point before. It was in no way a 20 minute walk from where Sophie and Meredith parted. 2)It was conclusively proved in court using CCTV that the postal police arrived at about 1:00 PM just after Raffaele made his call. This was supported by a police log showing that the police were not even dispatced until 12:45. We had this right at one point. On at least two occasions the Massei report says that the postal police arrived at 1:00--which is accurate. 3) The timeline accepts the prosecution's theory of time of death but this is very much in dispute. In fact it is a major point of contention and cannot at this point be treated as established fact. The appeals documents use coroners reports, indications of when Meredith last ate, unusual cell phone activity, the clothes in the dryer, how Meredith was dressed when attacked, and the testimony of those who were fixing a stalled car to undermine powerfully the prosecution claims on this point. Further, in his summation Mignini moved the time of death back to 11:30 without any foundation in evidence to accommodate the fact that Curatolo's testimony (if believed) gave them an alibi. As a final point, I am concerned about using the Micheli report any more. Surely he is superseded by Massei and if you are going to balance discussion on these critical issues the appeals simply must be included.PietroLegno (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If sources disagree, please list them both and note the disagreement. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Revised timeline from Massei updates: Yes, I had also read the definitive decision that postal police arrived c.13:00, so I have revised the timeline. The Micheli Judgment is needed for events about Guede (from his separate trial), but I think, when disputed, we could, indeed, put multiple times for some events. I have heard that Mignini replaced the first pathologist, with a 2nd doctor, who gave a different TOD, so we could have 2 (or 3) in the timeline, per each source. Also, I agree that the event timestamps from the appeal should also be included, and I don't think there would be too many conflicts of times. -Wikid77 01:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The work of the pathologists is an important subpoint. For reasons that have never been satisfactorily explained, the pathologist who first arrived on the scene was prevented from taking the victim's body temperature. Thus, the best opportunity to establish the all-important time of death was lost irretrievably. The consensus of the pathologists was that MK died between 2 and 3 hours after she last ate. That makes it 9:00 at the earliest and 10:00 PM at the latest. All the rest of the evidence suggests that the earlier time is more accurate. PietroLegno (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that what the Massei report actually says is that the police said ("claimed" if you prefer) that they arrived at the scene "a little after 12:30" (page 14), isn't it a bit rabidly pro-Knox to render this as "c.13:00", so that it appears as if it is after Sollecito called the police? According to Sollecito himself, he didn't call the police before they arrived: "She told me to call 121 but in the meantime the postal police arrived" [1]. So why the approximateness about it?

Obviously, I don't expect this comment to be taken seriously, but it's worth leaving here in case the article passes back into the hands of Wikipedia editors some time soon. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be awesome if you could make a comment without making a personal attack as part of it. Also, as you well know from your past conversations on this board [2], there is a disagreement as to whether the call was made before or after the police arrived. Pretending you didn't know that is, at best, an extreme example of selective memory and, at worst, an extreme example of editing in bad faith.LedRush (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is to drop the detailed timeline idea. When the times of specific events are known, include them in the text. Except for the phone calls, the exact times of many of the events in this case are not really known. --Footwarrior (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Footwarrior's suggestion. It will be impossible to construct a universally acknowledged timeline, I think. Further, many of the issues we would get into our sideline distractions. The main points of discussion ought to be motivation for the crime (or lack therof), the defendants own statements, the witness statements, and the many types of physical evidence.PietroLegno (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also cannot leave FormerIP's inaccurate assertions and sour comments above unchallenged. It is like he is stuck in a time warp. The link he provides is to a story that appeared in November 2007. It has since been shown by hard evidence to be inaccurate on this point. At trial, the defense established that the clock on the CCTV camera was at least 10 minutes slow. When this correction is made, it is apparent that the postal police arrived just after Raffaele made his call. This was all reported by a reliable Italian source at the time and we had things right in an earlier version of the article. Massei acknowledges this on pages 25 and 27 of the translated report. He is clearly making the point that while the postal police may have claimed to have been there at 12:30 but they were clearly wrong. Further, as I mentioned before, the police log showed that the officers were not dispatched until about 12:45--perfectly consistent with the later arrival. At trial the police came up with the rather lame excuse that the official log was in error. PietroLegno (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this account? The pages you refer to in the Massei report don't seem to make any reference to CCTV if "At trial, the defense established.." were true you would expect the sentencing report to at least mention it, whereas it seems instead to directly contradict the supposed conclusion. Or does "At trial, the defense established" really just mean "On the Internet, it was wildly speculated that...".

The Italian source you refer to obviously isn't RS and doesn't say what you are claiming in any case. But it's in Italian, so who's to know? I think, in the current climate, you will definitely get away with it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing how FormerIP needs to insult other editors with virtually every comment he makes on this site. Editors should address the merits of the points.LedRush (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. FormerIP's sourness wears thin. Of course the Italian source is reliable under any reasonable construction of the rules. But then he considers any source that does not agree with his pov unreliable. Frank Sfarzo--who is reliable on these matters if not all others--went over this in detail. It is in the appeals. Massei clearly accepts the defense point of view. I am tempted to say that this horse died a long time ago, except there was never really a horse at all. This is just one of those idiotic smokescreens the pro-guilt faction dreamed up. In reality, it is not in any sense probative. PietroLegno (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Frank Sfarzo is a blogger is he not? Are you able to quote the extract from the Massei report where this CCTV theory is even discussed?

As for my sourness, don't worry. I have many layers yet to wear through. --FormerIP (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember this being heavily debated before, but I don't remember a conclusive outcome. Pietro, can you provide the sources which indicate that that Massei accepted the defense point of view? If we get that, I think it changes the tenor of the discussion of whether the other source is reliable or not.LedRush (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so other people understand, the CCTV in the garage across the street picked up the arrival of both the postal police and Carabinieri. The prosecutor and police tried to claim the clock was actually fast and that the postal police arrived before Raffaele's call. However, an analysis of records established the earliest point at which the Carabinieri could have arrived. Using that sure point as reference, it was possible to demonstrate that the clock was 10-12 minutes slow--not fast. When that correction was applied it was conclusively proved that the postal police arrived after Raffaele's call, just as he had maintained all along. This was picked up and reported by reliable sources. No, Massei does not go into this issue in great detail. But he does correctly state the time that the postal police arrived (page 25 and 27 in the translation) and that was after the call. He clearly implies that the claims of the postal police were in error. After this, seeing nothing of value for the prosecution, he drops the subject. The theory that Raffaele called after the arrival of the postals was too absurd for even this hostile judge to credit. PietroLegno (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is a case of "sourness" to point out the problematic editing going on here. From the short time I have looked at these pages over the last few days, "rabidly pro-Knox" is pretty spot-on. Concocting an WP:OR timeline of events only compounds the issue, as this article moves away from an encyclopedia treatment and into realms of she-might-be-innocent advocacy. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with admitting to being sour about it, though.

Pietro. What you are giving seems to me to be the account of a blogger. It might be wrong or it might be right, but it isn't authoritative in itself. The Massei report can't really be said to "correctly" state the time of the arrival of the police, because it isn't even very precise about that time. It's "just after 12:30" (p 12) or "shortly before 1:00 pm" (p 14) or "shortly after 12:30" (p 84) (just incidentally, the reference I think you are alluding to above is to the arrival of another flatmate at 1 pm (p 12), by which time we know that the police were already there). This would seem a weak basis for saying that the time the police arrived was 1 pm. It doesn't even appear that the jury considered the time to be very important, or the report would be more specific. Secondary sources say the police testified that they arrived at 12:35 [3]. This is also the time indicated in the Micheli report [4] (text search "l'orario di arrivo dell’equipaggio alle 12:35"). --FormerIP (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that if there is a quote from Sollecito's himself, as refereed to by User:FormerIP regarding when he called the police this should be referenced and considered in the string of evidence on an encyclopaedia. Just because RS then decided to stay silent while lawyers worked around technicalities - it does not diminish the significance of the statement - it lends to highlighting and understanding the very controversy of this case. As for Pietro's explanation of the CCTV camera time - it is wrong. The CCTV was claimed to have been slow by the defence and it was not the prosecution who claimed it was fast. This is significant, because at first site and per Micheli the police had evidence in form of CCTV time stamp showing the police arrived before RS's cell phone called 112. It was then claimed by the defence that the camera clock was slow and that is where we seem to be in the Massei Report. --GiselleK (talk) 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the Massei Report in context, it's rather clear that the judge didn't accept that the Postal Police arrived before the call to 112. Quoting from page 15:

"These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi.

As stated by Battistelli (page 80, hearing of February 6, 2009) they had some difficulty finding the house, as they had gone along Viale S. Antonio, which is alongside and in part hides the house. Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen."

The claim that the officers arrived around 12:30 is not supported by any documents. Nor does it fit with the other events of that day. Filomena and friends showed up close to 1 pm, while Amanda was still showing the two officers the broken window and blood in the flat. When did AK and RS have time to sneak away and make the 112 call where the officers couldn't hear it? Even ignoring the car park video evidence, the claim that the officers arrived at 12:30 PM doesn't work. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pietro is basically correct on this. The defense presentation in court is the postale pdf found here:  :http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/postale.pdf

The cameras show the arrival of the police at 12:48, the prosecution had the 10-12 minutes reversed, the clock was slow and not fast. This was proven in the same presentation through Amanda's phone records as the Cabinieri called for directions and they would have had to arrive (arrival also shown in the pdf) before they called her if the clock was fast and not slow. The actual arrival time would have been 12:58-1:00PM of the postale police, and not the 12:35 (12:38 if clock was fast going buy the photos) claimed by the prosecution.RoseMontague (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, here is p 89 of the translated Massei report, where the report finds unequivocally, if meekly, that the Carabinieri are called before the postal police arrive.

‘And then, a change of version takes place and he tells the Postal Police (who it can be held that, according [81] to what is maintained by the defendants' defence, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them, at 12:40 pm and at 12:50 pm; each of these phone calls being of a not brief duration that, therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers) that there has been a burglary. Fabio Marsi in fact testified that they two young people told him "they were awaiting the arrival of the Carabinieri because there had been a burglary inside the house" ‘

Yes, it’s begrudged, but it’s there: “the Postal Police (who ***it can be held*** …[derived from arguments of the defense], arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112 … by … the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing [and] .. they said nothing about those that preceded them … each call being of a not brief duration … [and] therefore, would not have escaped the attention of the two police officers. “

There is no controversy. The call to the Carabinieri came first, the postal police arrived after Sollecito’s second call to the Carabinieri, no earlier than 12:55.Moodstream (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not an appropriate use of primary sources. If secondary sources have discussed in what order the police arrived (Who cares? Why does this matter at all?) then please provide them. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don’t follow. In a prior version of the talk page, in the ‘Events Surrounding the Murder Section’, you argue “Secondary sources are sources that are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.” The translation of the Massei report is such a second hand account. The translators analyzed the primary source, the Italian version, and reported it. The focus should be the reliability of the translation. Your sources simply report, far less reliably, from the same material reviewed by the translators.Moodstream (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The report of a prosecutor, or the ruling of a judge is a primary source. A translation without commentary of a primary source is still a primary source. If you doubt my accuracy, please seek clarification at WP:RSN. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I think it's enormously important, I do think that we should be citing the Italian original rather than the translation, because the translation is self-published. The translation is obviously useful to editors for the purposes of discussion, though. --FormerIP (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Moodstream and Footwarrior: Whether it fits the defence version of events or not isn't the point. The point is that if you want to create a timeline of events you need to use the times in the sources, not make times up based on what you suppose must have been the case. Massei mentions the time on three occasions. Twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm. From this we can only conclude that it must be somewhere between the two. Other primary and secondary sources say 12:35. No sources have been presented for any other time.

If the times in the sources don't support your side of the story, don't make a timeline. --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I am not sure that the entire detailed timeline is completely necessary. However, I do believe that certain aspects can be: certain calls, and certainly whether the police came before or after Sollecito's call to them. However, FormerIP is right, we need reliable, secondary sources. Even with those, though, we need to recognize that at least some (and perhaps all) secondary sources go with the earlier timeline. We can't change/delete it because we don't like it.LedRush (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond in depth. However, a quick review of the '12:30' times I found show that Massei is reporting from the Postal Police's memory. The report is not ruling or judging, just reporting the Postal Polices frame of mind. Even p. 94 of the translation. There, earlier testimony is being referred to and reported, it seems to me. Am I wrong?Moodstream (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fine. I have put both arrivals as 2 entries, 12:35 & c.13:00, with note "^{[time decided in court]}" which can be changed to link a short section about the disputed time, since extensive text is unlikely to reverse the Massei time decision. However, this seems like the type of controversial topic to be mentioned (briefly) in the article, which is expected to have NPOV coverage, including major controversies. By formerly omitting 10 controversies, it seemed as though the article had been slanted to omit topics which favored one view or another, and left issues appearing to be undecided when, in fact, they had been settled in court. -Wikid77 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no source for "c. 13:00". That's all there is to it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

While it appears that the Massei report concluded that the police came after the second call, it is OR to say they came "c. 13:00". We need a source for such a statement.LedRush (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Massei Report page 15. Didn't you read the quote I posted earlier? --Footwarrior (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you looking at only one quote (BTW I don't think you actually mean p 15)? Massei refers to the time on three occasions. Twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm. So all we can say is it must have been somewhere between the two. Interpreting it as "c. 13:00" is obviously not okay unless we intend the page to be a distorted representation of the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Footwarrior that it appears the Massei report has agreed that the police came after the second call. And because we know when the second call was, it logically stands to reason that that is the earliest they could have arrived. But we cannot synthesize these facts to make the claim as if the Massei report says about 1:00, when it is clear that the Massei report cites different times. If there isn't a secondary source on this, we shouldn't include it. Either that, or we deal with the controversy in the text and cite 12:30-13:00 in the timeline.LedRush (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to apologize for this post. Every word is already known by every likely reader. I hate to waste your time. But I have more concern that this article might end up promoting the fallacy that Massei reports two different times for the arrival of the postal police or ‘twice he says shortly after 12:30, once he says shortly before 1 pm’. There is no controversy in Massei over the arrival time of the postal police.

Where does Massei cite two different times? Where does Massei say the call came after the arrival of the postal police? Not on page 27 (all pages pmf translation): “Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen. Not on p 92-93 : Inspector Battistelli recalls…"they told us they were waiting for the police" (Hearing on February 6, 2009, page 64, pages 86, 87). … Battistelli has also stated in the same hearing that it was Romanelli who noticed that Meredith's door was locked (page 118). On this point, it is possible that Battistelli's memory is not precise. It does indicate how no importance was given to the locked door by Amanda and Raffaele when Battistelli arrived with Marzi shortly after 12:30 pm,” It = the report of the hearing, where Battistelli recalls – recalls that he arrived shortly after 12:30. Page 92-93 is simply a retelling of p 27.

Thus Massei does not support a 12:30 arrival time for the postal police. Massei only relays the Postal Police’s unsupported perception of their own arrival time.

“the Postal Police (who it can be held …, arrived after Raffaele Sollecito's telephone call to 112, and this by nothing other than the fact that regarding these calls to 112, the Postal Police say nothing; in the same way that they said nothing about those that preceded them.” Here is the list of calls about which they said nothing over that short 30 minute period: 12:34:56 - 12:35:44 Filomena calls Amanda 12:35: Raffaele contacted a service centre for a phone credit recharge 12:38: Vodafone sent a message of confirmation of phone credit recharge 12:40 – 12:41:07: incoming call from the father's mobile phone 12:47:23 – 12:48:51 Amanda calls her mother 12:50:34- 12:51:15 Raffaele calls Vanessa Sollecito, sister 12:51:40 12:54:29Raffaele Sollecito calls "112" 12:54:30? – 12:55:27? second call by Raffaele

The longest break between calls? Six minutes. Total talk time, eight minutes. The conclusion is incontrovertible, and Massei endorses the conclusion again at p P387-388 by writing: “and Raffaele called the Carabinieri to whom he describes the situation and specifies that there had been no theft, and we have already pointed out the … inconsistencies in Amanda's and Raffaele's ***subsequent*** behaviour on the arrival of the agents from the Postal Police."

There is no controversy regarding the relative arrival time of the postal police. The only controversy is if the postal police were mistaken or if they lied.Moodstream (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Such a section would violate WP:SUMMARY and also WP:NOR. --John (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The detailed timeline is being prepared for re-inclusion per Wikipedia policy (see: WP:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems). Timelines, in general, do not violate WP:NOR, as otherwise, Wikipedia would not contain hundreds of timelines in articles, such as in hundreds of year articles (see: "1964"). Correlating information based on sourced times is not considered improper synthesis. -Wikid77 23:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, without referring to items in other articles which may be equally problematic, justify your assertion that "Timelines, in general, do not violate WP:NOR". Even if this was established, which it has not been, my concern about WP:SUMMARY still stands. --John (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Is a timeline assumed to be OR until proven otherwise? Why should Wikid77 have to prove a negative instead of you proving your point? And why can't he use examples...the fact that other stuff exists is not dispositive, but it is helpful.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking Wikid77 to prove a negative but a positive. The onus is on any editor wishing to add material to demonstrate why its inclusion would be a net positive for the article. This is what I am trying to see here. At the moment I am not seeing it. --John (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You said "Please, without referring to items in other articles which may be equally problematic, justify your assertion that "Timelines, in general, do not violate WP:NOR"." You are asking him to prove that it's not OR, without any evidence that it is OR. Shouldn't someone have to prove that it is OR, or at least make some good argument that it is? If this were written as prose, it would be just like any other WP article, with each sentence supported by a RS. I don't see the difference here. If you think there is one, I would like to see a pursuasive argument to that effect.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think a time line is a great idea if it includes all the contradictions in Massei's report. For example Massei's report has the family that found the phone reporting the second phone found to the police before the second phone was in fact found.

The time line should have the police saying that the cam timer was 10 minutes slow (Oggi article) and 10 minutes fast. The time line should show that Amanda is both in the apartment and outside the apartment at the same time as indicated in Massei's report.--Truth Mom (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The upstairs flat diagram

Where did that come from? Is it original research, or a reproduction of something published in a secondary source? Sorry if I missed earlier discussion on this issue: the board is crazy busy now.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Click on the image and you will see it's the original work of the editor that uploaded the graphic. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

So, is OR allowed for diagrams?LedRush (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A diagram is not considered original research. See WP:OI.--Footwarrior (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. So, it is clear that this image does "not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments"? Everyone's ok with it? I am not educated enough on the house layout to have an opinion.LedRush (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• (after endless ec) :::The image is still there after it was deleted several times (also under a different filename) because the uploader was so insistent and seemly nobody cared anymore :) Cheers.TMCk (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Why was it deleted? Was it because it illustrates or introduces unpublished ideas or argument? Or because it's not needed? Something else?LedRush (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is Wikid77, the author of that concept diagram, and it had been deleted (twice?) as being too close in dimensions to a published map of the house, which would be considered a copy vio unless all dimensions of the house could be proven to match a published source of the house measurements (as in the Micheli Judgment). Instead, using sources which described the relative locations of the rooms and objects, I recreated the image as a rough concept diagram, with rectangular walls although the actual house had uneven skewed walls, with the bedrooms nearly square. That way, there was no need to prove the length of each wall segment as required in a map scaled to the numbers in a formal source document. Although that diagram is backed by the room descriptions from Micheli, free photos could be submitted with little restrictions. The policy might seem shocking, but the issue of "no original research" does not apply to photos, and someone could upload a photo claiming it showed part of the house, and there would be no need to cite a published photo to prove the similarity with a documented source photo. That is another area of Wikipedia which could be improved, to require some amount of similarity to published photos in some cases. The limit on diagrams restricts the image to not "introduce unpublished ideas" such as a re-enactment of an event which does not match any reliable source. -Wikid77 03:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If the copyright fanatics are going to be that obnoxious, someone could copy the computer software industry's "clean room" approach. One Wikipedian writes down a verbal description of the map, giving the dimensions of all the rooms, in a format that is clearly non-copyrightable in a country not suffering from database copyright. Another then creates a map based on that information, without having viewed the original document. The measurements are sourced to the original diagram, so it is not original research, but no copyright violation can be asserted. Note that I would have no issue about accepting the good faith of an editor who says that he performed both steps, provided the output does not clearly contradict that. Wnt (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The upstairs flat at Via della Pergola 7 (in Perugia, Italy). The blue square (at right ) is a corner shower, in the small bathroom with no window, where a few blood smears were found.

• I also think a floorplan could be drawn from measurements, but that would be so tedious and most likely, some users would begin arguing that it introduced "original research" of the proportional wall thickness or other issues of map scaling. Hence, a concept diagram is simpler, requiring less rigorous defense of the length and width of each area. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, so there is no restriction to indicate a doorway where one is shown in a photograph. The concept is similar to noting a person in a photograph is "2nd person from the left" and that is not considered original research. Most simple conclusions are allowed when writing articles, as allowable synthesis, as opposed to "novel conclusions" not found in WP:RS reliable sources. -Wikid77 08:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fanatic. I merely wanted to know the history of the image and the associated rules. It seems particularly important in an contentious article such as this.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It had been added to an old version of the article, then deleted as considered a map. Another user requested the diagram be re-added several weeks later, and that is when I added the current style of image (seen here at left). It was also noted as important when it was re-added, to support more detail about the topic. For instance, it is obvious in the diagram that there were 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms (and only 2, whereas 1 bathroom on a floor is often assumed). More later. -Wikid77 08:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I took it out. It adds nothing and is OR. --John (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• I put it back in to correct the violation of consensus, while the image was being discussed. Hello? Please read WP:CONSENSUS about how people on Wikipedia discuss potential major deletions, such as removing an image to get agreement, especially, consider discussing the notion with the person who created the diagram. Also, read WP:NOR and WP:RS for background information. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• As an administrator of several years standing I assure you I am very familiar with the pages you linked to. It is clearly a case of original research, and the onus is on you if you wish to include it, to demonstrate a consensus that it is worth keeping. If you cannot do that, it will have to be removed again. --John (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I object in the strongest possible terms to John's continued attempts to introduce non-neutral elements here and into the lead--and heavens knows where else. He is undermining our efforts to build consensus and make a very flawed article much better. PietroLegno (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this non-free diagram is a POV. However, if you insist it be removed, I guess that's ok. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably easiest to take it to the OR noticeboard and get some additional eyes who aren't involved in this article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea Ravensfire, I probably will do. --John (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry it took me a few days. --John (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If User:John is indeed "an administrator of several years" who is "very familiar with the pages" he should also be aware of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:INVOLVED and WP:EDITWAR. Some of his statements here and elsewhere seem overly aggressive and appear to be trying to use his admin status as a hammer to get his own way. I hope that is not the case, and he could reassure us it is not by toning his rhetoric down several notches. He should also be reminded that User:JimboWales himself was here and made statements that seem to contradict what John is now trying to say. Are we to believe that Jimbo does not understand WP:NOR? Or is it that people in good faith can come to conflicting conclusions?

Seriously, John, take a step back, try to have a good faith discussion with people instead of just insisting you are right, and do not dive in with controversial edits against consensus. As an administrator with all your years of experience there is no excuse for behavior that violates Wikipedia's standards of conduct. DreamGuy (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Previous version of this image were deleted because they were copyviolations of an image from this website: [5]. Although the version here has been narrowed by 16%, had its colour scheme changed and had some toilets added, it still looks derived from the same image to me. If it is, then it is still a copyvio. Wikid, you say "using sources which described the relative locations of the rooms and objects, I recreated the image as a rough concept diagram". Which sources did you use? How is it that the descriptions in these sources were such that the result of your work map exactly onto the floor plan produced by the BBC? --FormerIP (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the original, I think it's absurd to call that a copyvio. I would dispute whether such a simple linear top-down diagram has enough artistic elements to copyright at all, and certainly they aren't copied over. At least in the U.S., you can't copyright the numeric dimensions of the rooms or which is attached to which - and that's all they have in common! Wnt (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You can copyright a drawing though. What they have in common is that one is the other after someone has photoshopped it. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The BBC site above is missing a few key details. Like it shows no door into the flat! More significantly, it omits all mention of the shared kitchen, something which I would think would be of no small importance to point out in relation to the provenance of a few cells' worth of DNA. Wnt (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the cottage layout and photos and I think the flat diagram would be very useful to a reader. The diagram is accurate and useful. It is good to have a visual of where the different rooms are. If this is about having a concensus, my opinion is its a keeper. Issymo (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Diagram, part of the evidence file developed by the Italian police.--Truth Mom (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diagram taken from the case file: http://friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/fingerprint_map_small.jpg There should be no problem with it as it is all public record. I am constantly amazed at the lengths to which some editors will go to try to keep good, useful, and eminently useful information out of the article. PietroLegno (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article benefits a great deal from a floorplan of the flat anyway. If this image is public domain, though, it would certainly be better than an image modified by a user from a copright image. --FormerIP (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already made a request on the talk page of the file. Would someone please add the sources for the flat diagram on the file page?--Grifomaniacs (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that it is either a copyvio or most likely, original research and I urge that it be taken down from the article. It might be less of a problem on an article about a railroad or a carnival ride, but it is not in our interests to publish a user-generated image like this on an article about a murder case which has not been fully resolved. --John (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Having looked hard at the image for the first time, I agree with John on WP:OR concerns. I appreciate that links to possible source material have been added above, but I doubt that it is enough to cite such links here, at the article talk page, and claim no violation of relevant policies when there is no attribution on the file page or in the file itself past "as indicated in numerous photos of the house". The image in isolation gives no clue as to how the dimensions are sourced - they cannot be verified without positive attribution. On WP:COPYVIO, I'd argue that the image is safe. Wikipedia's fair-use media policies state that duplicating such things as graphs is forbidden, since graph values can easily be reproduced in the form of a free-licence image. If it is impossible to copyright graphs, I doubt that it is possible to copyright the scale dimensions of an apartment. SuperMarioMan 00:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not share those OR concerns since the drawing can be easily verified. The only concern I have is that the image could be a copyvio for which we have experts to look over it and decide. Should it be only available as fair use I see no need to keep it though I wouldn't keep it in the article as free image either.TMCk (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me there are two separate threads here; the merits of this particular image (I think it's unprofessional and fanboyish, not to mention possible OR and copyvio concerns), and also whether this article really benefits from having a floorplan diagram, however conformant with our policy (I think it does not). As several others have questioned this, could we take it down while we discuss it? I really think it looks awful. --John (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've been bold and taken the floor plan out again. I don't want to provoke an edit war over this, but there is hardly an overwhelming consensus for its presence in the article at this time. If the WP:BRD cycle is to be adhered to, it should arguably never have been re-inserted in the first place pending a full discussion at the talk page (which still seems to be incomplete). A referral from the OR noticeboard is expected. Until this is done, merits and disadvantages of the image can be reviewed using the copy posted here at the talk page. SuperMarioMan 03:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Escalating edit-war for diagram: Taking the image out, for a 2nd time, really is a MAJOR edit-war action, after all the above comments explaining who, what, when, where, why and how the image was requested, created, referenced, explained, justified, and screened against numerous WP policies and guidelines. However, I will ask other editors to leave the image out, for a few days, to give people time to re-read the (above) comments and consider the many people who strongly stated to leave the diagram in the article. When 5 people say, "Don't remove the diagram" then there is no consensus to remove the diagram. That, of course, is clear. As for WP:IDONTLIKEIT viewpoints, well, please understand, if I had already re-edited the diagram into a highly polished, intricate image, then someone would be re-nominating it as a copyvio of some imagined "professional diagram" every few days, as unlikely to be the artwork of an average-user effort. Right now, most normal people easily conclude, "Hey, there's no way this simple stick-figure diagram is a copyvio of a professional floor-plan". I apologize if I seem too harsh, but this diagram has been hounded for at least 8 rounds of being removed and re-added to the article, each time being axed due to some imagined earth-shattering crisis. If "you don't like it" then ignore it, or offer some positive suggestions of how it could be improved. Meanwhile, several users are probably fearing that they are being excluded from the consensus here, so that is why I will be putting the image back into the article in a few days. It is a violation of WP:DE and INTIMIDATION to abruptly remove a large diagram that many users agreed should stay. Please don't do these major deletions again without a true consensus, because it looks like an escalation of WP:BATTLEground mentality. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I fail utterly to understand the objection to the diagram's being included. In fact, had user Wikid77 not proposed a rational way of proceeding I would have reinstated the diagram this morning. The idea that this might be OR seems overly lawyered to me and flies in the face of common sense. As I noted above, a version of the diagram was introduced at trial by the prosecution and is part of the public record of the case. I look forward to the diagram being back in in a few days. PietroLegno (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps "this diagram has been hounded for at least 8 rounds of being removed and re-added to the article, each time being axed" because multiple users have raised legitimate questions about its very existence in the article? This is all about erring on the side of caution. I don't think that a highly visible page like this one really needs such a questionable image when a full review of its status has yet to be finished. Furthermore, if you're going to state categorically that "I will be putting the image back into the article in a few days", then don't bother making quick references to WP:DE, WP:INTIM and WP:BATTLE to round off your post - I think you'll find that the real edit war will become obvious if the image is replaced too soon. SuperMarioMan 12:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The image exists to, once again, advance a specific POV. It is unnecessary, adds little value to the reader's understanding of the overall subject matter, and quite honestly looks like a 10 yr old whipped it up with MS Paint. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In order to clear any suspect of WP:OR, the file description should report the sources used to create that graphical logical representation of the crime scene. It is not sufficient to report them in this talk page, because the sources may be verified by readers as well. As I wrote on the file talk page the best sources for the graphical artwork could be text articles that describe the crime scene. In fact, at that point nobody could claim any WP:Copyvio. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This diagram is beneficial to the article. I don't personally understand how it can be thought of as either advancing a POV or how it is OR. It is simply stating the dimensions of the flat and showing the relationship of the rooms to each other and the location of bathrooms and the kitchen. I have read this whole section and am baffled as to why this is still an issue. Turningpointe (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's ok that you don't personally understand as you are either a brand-new editor or a sock of a blocked editor. We need to persuasively answer the concerns over a) the image quality (it looks crap) and b) whether the article needs an image of this type (it probably doesn't). Once these questions have been answered to the satisfaction of the non-SPA editors here, we could consider including the diagram. --John (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would remind you, John, not to engage in personal attacks; please try and discuss the edit and not the editor.LedRush (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• Would some sort of dispute resolution process, such as an RfC, be called for here? Perhaps the biggest obstacle to establishing a firm consensus (for either inclusion or exclusion - there are arguments for both) is the fact that there have been too few contributors to the discussion thus far who are sufficiently uninvolved to help reach a conclusive judgement. Wikid has updated the file documentation at Commons with attribution to a similar image at the Friends of Amanda site - such a partisan source would not be acceptable for citations in text, but are there no problems with using it to source a floorplan? SuperMarioMan 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The best place to start is the Original Research noticeboard. You'll get a fair number of uninvolved editors to read and hopefully comment on this. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been posted there by John.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! I didn't make the connection (I've got ORN on my watchlist) and didn't check before posting. My apologies! Ravensfire (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just wondering whether something besides the OR noticeboard was merited also, but I accept Ravensfire's conclusion. SuperMarioMan 21:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:John, your comment is purely opinion. I do not see above where the quality is in question and why would it not be beneficial to have a diagram of the flat so that people can have a mental picture of the crime scene and the rest of the flat so they may understand physical descriptions of the evidence better?Turningpointe (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(An outsider still looking in) John, which policies are you pointing to to back up image quality and article needs? Newcomers need to see these policies linked and not just alluded to. Also, to whomever can answer, a concern has been raised that the map advances a certain POV...can you explain how it does so. That isn't clear what is meant by that assertion. It is starting to seem as if the goalposts are being moved. The only legitimate policy concerns that I have seen in this thread are potential copyvio (which does not appear to have merit) and potential original research (no opinion yet).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason why the current diagram cannot remain on the article. It is certainly beneficial to the reader. I don't think "it looks like crap" is a good reason to remove it. I am eager to hear what other editors not involved with this article think about the need for a diagram. Just out of curiosity, what are the objections to using the diagram made available from the actual case files? http://friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/fingerprint_map_small.jpg BruceFisher (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• When I first looked at this article a long time ago I apprecitated the diagram. It helped me visualize the flat. The flat layout is odd for an American because there really isn't a living room. It helps the reader understand where the two bathrooms are, which is important to the crime details. The same goes for the room where the window is broken and MK's bedroom. I don't see how the diagram pushes a point of view in ANYWAY, it is simply the layout of the flat. It is a very, very useful visual tool for any reader. I think both sides can appreciate the value it brings to the reader. If the issue is the way the diagram looks - a very good option is to replace it with the police dept diagram. It has the benefit of being more professionally done. I'm okay with either diagram, but would really like to see one remain because of the value it provided to me and I know would to other readers. Here again is the police diagram - http://friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/fingerprint_map_small.jpg Issymo (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tarc The diagram of a crime scene in a Wiki article about a crime is "unnecessary"? That's a rather remarkable statement. How is it possible to even begin to address what strives to be an "encyclopedic" understanding of a crime without a mutually 'understood' location/environment of a "crime scene"? How else does one know/refer to where/what one is talking about? How does a "location" advance a "specific POV" that is not already inherent in the location itself? Where in the history of crime scene investigation or expository writings on crime has there been such a statement? No where in the U.S. Dept of Justice Guide to Crime Scene Investigation can you find a statement so ridiculous. Do you think Italian investigators believe otherwise? Please cite a ref. The converse is true and any "10 year old" can tell you 'that', let alone one sophisticated enough to have "whipped up" an easier to see and read but nonetheless accurate rendering of the police diagram from the case files "with MS Paint". Also, regarding the statement that the image "..adds little value to the reader's understanding of the overall subject matter..."? An understanding of the layout of the crime scene is one of the most fundamental and important elements, if not the most fundamental and important element, investigators must consider when evaluating the circumstances behind any crime, particularly one that involves evidence that was discovered in various rooms and locations throughout a house over a period of months and allege a "cleanup" took place as well as a "faked break-in" intended to throw authorities off-track of the entrance and exit points of the perpetrator/perpetrators. It's inclusion, therefore, does add a fundamentally important element to the "value of the readers overall understanding of the subject matter" as much of the discussion of this case and it's attending controversies have centered on whether or not the crime as theorized by authorities to have occurred was even possible. It defies belief there is an argument regarding the "importance" of including a diagram of the crime scene itself.Fancourt (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that replacing the current user-made image with the Italian police's own image would be acceptable under fair-use media guidelines. In general, when it is possible to make a free reproduction of licensed media that would adequately preserve the encyclopaedic benefit of the original, Wikipedia insists that the self-made image be used. Like Berean Hunter, I believe that the problem of WP:COPYVIO has little foundation. Instead of uploading a fair-use image, a better course of action would be for Wikid to remake the existing image to true scale. SuperMarioMan 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the diagram. It gives me a better understanding of the event. I don't think it needs to be to scale. Would a note added to the diagram saying not to scale suffice? --Truth Mom (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the image adds to the article. Some users have suggested that it looks juvenile, but appearance isn't much of a concern to me either. There is already a note in the diagram itself stating that the dimensions are not scaled. The crux of my argument is that, given the question (whether well- or ill-founded) about OR, a diagram that is made to scale would eliminate concerns about original interpretation or approximation from the source material. After all, in the image, it is stated that "positions are approximate". SuperMarioMan 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. I'm back. I have to say, I cant believe the issue of adding a simple diagram to the article has created this much controversy. The diagram is a simple line drawing that illustrates the relative positions of the rooms and doors. It's no doubt inspired by the BBC diagram and possibly the numerous photos of the flat that have been published online. There's no claim of scaled measurements. It's clearly not WP:OR. It does nothing more than help the reader visualize the layout of the apartment. There cannot be anything anymore UNcontroversial than the apt floorplan. So whats the REAL issue here? I see the discussion splitting along the usual lines but I dont understand why. How does a floorplan either suggest Amanda's guilt OR innocence? It doesnt. So, unless someone has a claim that the diagram isnt accurate, I move we re-add the floorplan and move on to issues of some weight. SUPPORT ADD OF FLOORPLAN. Tjholme (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The trial of Amanda Knox

I'm new, but I am just wondering if there could be any consideration to a different Wikipedia page titled "The trial of Amanda Knox"? It's still ongoing and could continue to be added to. This could eliminate any feud over trying to have the name, "The Murder of Meredith Kercher" page changed. I know of no other trial like this which which has had so much media attention. Anyone would be able to weigh in as long as their edits and comments are factual and adhere to the guidelines. On a side note, perhaps it could entail less arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellesings (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that a major rationale for "Murder of Meredith Kercher" as opposed to "Trial of Amanda Knox and/or Raffaele Sollecito" is one of cause and effect: since the murder preceded the trials, it makes sense that the title should focus on the idea of "murder", not "trial". However, since the article offers a more or less comprehensive treatment of trials and appeals nevertheless, I doubt that a separate page is really called for. Meanwhile, opinion is divided on whether Knox should be given an article of her own. SuperMarioMan 06:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: It would be more accurate to state that a split is not merited as yet. Depending on the amount of new material that is added to the article in the course of the next few weeks or months, subarticles (as Berean Hunter notes) may become more necessary. SuperMarioMan 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it is Wikipedia policy to award encyclopedia pages to common criminals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article content grows to a very large amount then it may make sense to split out a sub-article containing the trial. This is standard Wiki practice. An example would be the Murder of Laci Peterson but there is also an article for Scott Peterson. (to the IP) She isn't fully convicted yet under Italian law unless she has exhausted all of her appeals.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is very small -- the dispute is big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.229.93 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bloody Footprints in the hall, Filomena's room, and Amanda's room

The following quote from Judge Massei’s report (motivation document) page 256-257, indicates there were no bloody foot prints compatible with Amanda or Raffaele and there were no bloody footprints at all except for one print on the bath mat....

NOTE: To understand this paragraph one must consider that the so-called bloody footprints were found with Luminol in the hallway, Amanda's bedroom and Filomena's bedroom. Also if a sample in question did not contain a genetic profile then it's not possible blood was present the area sampled. Blood contains a genetic profile, so it is not possible the area sampled was blood. Does anyone dispute that?

From Massei report page 256-257: “With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine, and this test, gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (page 64 hearing Sept. 26, 2009).”Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The facts are a) We don't know for sure whose footprints were in the hall--the police did not take reference samples and all we really know is that Amanda cannot be excluded as a donor; b) luminol is only a preliminary test for blood, and when the confirmatory test was done it was negative; c) there was no DNA in the prints. To summarize: no blood or DNA in the prints and we don't know for certain whose prints they were. Note too that 14 luminol hits were found in Raffaele's apartment. Those weren't blood either.PietroLegno (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than analyzing the data here, it might be preferable to expand or start new articles on the many blood tests in use ([6] seems like a beginning) so that readers who are interested can do their own OR. For example, some sources list the DMB test as only 1/5 as sensitive as the luminol ([7]) - however, bear in mind that the development of colorimetric signals is an art form and there are many protocols meant to get a little more oomph out of the procedure (which would make nice meat for an article about the test). I think someone would have to have the product number of the kit they used to even have a prayer of figuring out such details for himself. (And the experts cited by the media? 50-50 chance they'll get it right...) Wnt (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we might be getting wrong-footed in several places here. First, I want to make sure that no one suggests that it is reliable to interpret luminol findings on the basis of color. There was an old wives tale to that effect but it has never been accepted in modern practice. Here is a useful source:

"If the result of the presumptive testing is negative, the analysis is terminated. However, if the result is positive, then a more definitive confirmatory test is performed. The reason for this that there are a number of substances that can produce false-positive observations including bleach, plant peroxidases, chemical oxidants such as potassium permanganate, copper, brass, lead, zinc, bronze, iron, or cobalt."

"DNA: Forensic and Legal Applications" Lawrence Kobilinsky, Thomas Liotti, and Jamel Oeser-Sweat John Wiley and Sons, 2005, p. 36

The point is that luminol is always to be considered only a preliminary test and a luminol "hit" is NEVER to be accepted as an indication of the presence of blood absent a positive finding from a confirmatory test.

As for the DNA/luminol issue, it is important to distinguish, analyze, and not lump everything in together. The footprints in the hallway (which have not been shown to belong to Amanda) did not test positive for blood and contained no DNA--hence the defense suggestion that the idea that these were Amanda's "bloody footprints" is wildly illogical and unsupported by evidence. Just a few of the luminol stains found elsewhere yielded DNA profiles but these were strictly non-probative. PietroLegno (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a source that the jury in this particular case was wrong to believe that the traces were made in blood, or is this just OR? --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The negative results of the blood tests need to be included in the article. Then the reader can make up his or her own mind about whether the jury was right or wrong to believe that. Does that sound reasonable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A secondary source needs to be found for the information first, at the very least. --FormerIP (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Candace Dempsey covers this. I will get the citation. In the mean time, I have taken the liberty of summarizing the points made in the Knox appeal. This is surely enough to demonstrate that the point is vigorously disputed:

~---There is no evidence that any of these tracks were made in blood and there is nothing to link them to the murder.

---Evidence shows that there were no footprints or shoe prints found inside the murder room that could be attributed to Amanda.

---Only 3 of 9 luminol tracks had the positive profile of Meredith. Meredith’s DNA profile was NOT found in any of the claimed bare footprints (nor was anyone's).

--Initially, Stefanoni claimed that no additional testing was done. The information she was compelled to release in July 2009 revealed otherwise. The luminol findings were all tested using using TMB and the tests were negative for all tracks.

---Massei’s speculation that the negative test results occurred because the sample was just too small is silly and wrong as a matter of science. Any error in this type of testing usually provides a false positive, not a false negative. This same type of testing was able to confirm blood in tests of the bathroom samples of far smaller in quantity than the bare foot print findings.

--Massei appears to accept the claim the luminol stain was blood based upon a subjective assessment of the color of the reaction. This is completely unscientific and flies in the face of established protocols everywhere. The bottom line is there was no proof that the footprints were made with Meredith’s blood. PietroLegno (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The luminol evidence was central to Knox/Sollecito’s conviction. I think letting the reader know why and how this conclusion was reached is important to understanding Knox’s conviction.

Knox’s DNA recovered from the lumiol traces could only come from pressure or sweat, because she had no cuts on her feet. But whereever she walked with bare feet she would leave DNA via that same process, and she walked around her own home barefoot plenty. Recovering Knox’s DNA from any given patch of floor would simply be incidental. That would also have to be true of Meredith’s DNA found on the floor. Well, perhaps that is OR.

Still, I think one of the problems with explaining the luminol traces is being overly brief. It’s easy to create the false impression that the traces are easily identified as foot prints, and that the placement of the traces leads to a logical connection with the crime. Reading the Massei report shows that neither of these statements are true. We should be willing to devote enough text to explain the luminol traces in some depth - exactly what was found with luminol, how the court came to decide the traces were connected to the crime, the strengths and weaknesses of the luminol traces as evidence. Moodstream (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the luminol footprints prove is that there was no cleanup of the crime scene. That's it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, I"m confused. I can't find the information you mentioned in your post about: 1) the test only being 50% reliable, 2) the test results "not easy to interpret" 3) something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement 4) Massei concluding that the traces probably are blood. If you don't mind would you please copy and paste the paragraphs here from where you found this information, along with the page number where I can find the information. The following is your comment from April 2.

"This is getting far too deeply into original analysis of a primary source. Turningpointe, what you are selectively quoting is Massei himself quoting something put forward by the defence. You're missing out that the court expert said that the traces were blood and the defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable. It is agreed by both sides that the traces contained DNA. The defence witness appears to be questioning whether the traces are blood, but agreeing that they must be something that would contain DNA, such as spit or excrement. Since it is known that someone was stabbed in the flat, Massei, not surprisingly, concludes that the traces probably are blood. --FormerIP (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)--Truth Mom (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some sense of proportion is being lost here. Should an encyclopedia article really be delving into such specifics? Is the article going to re-try the evidence and come up with its own judgment on what it all meant and how it should be interpreted? I think that if the article were to be truly neutral it would necessarily be frustrating to advocates on all sides. The goal here should be to produce something encyclopedic that frustrates everyone at least a little. I'm pretty new/ infrequent on Wikipedia but it seems clear to me that NPOV means the article can say that "this is what they were convicted for, this is what the court said, this is what they're saying in their appeals" but not "the traces found with luminol clearly were not made in blood." The latter is OR. And impossible for anyone who's not a forensic expert to know, by the way. And even forensic experts disagree. It's tempting to play amateur CSI here but that's not what an encyclopedia article is for. What is knowable--and appropriate for an encyclopedia to report--is that a conviction was made, an appeal is being made, the court said X, the defense said Y, etc. Grebe39 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Grebe39, I see that you are new to wikipedia, welcome. If you don't mind would you please delete your comment or revise it because nobody suggested an edit to the article that reads "the traces found with Luminol clearly were not made in blood." Also I suggest that you start a new topic to discuss what wikipedia should be, which BTW is an excellent topic to discuss. I prefer to keep this topic focused on the bloody footprints in the hall, Filomena's bedroom, and Amanda's bedroom. My comment will be deleted after this issue is resolved. We have to do things a special way here and the Admins do that stuff. Thank you kindly.--Truth Mom (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm just overlooking it, but is there a specific suggestion under consideration in this thread for an edit or change to the article? I see a discussion of the so called 'bloody footprints' but I dont see what specific changes are being proposed. I do think the subject is important as the presence of 'bloody footprints belonging to Amanda' has long been one of those inaccurate red-herrings that appear damning but have no real basis. The bare footprints in the hall that fluoresced with luminol were later determined (Stefanoni's notes) to have been tested with TMB and did not react. i.e not blood, The presence of DNA, if it existed, meant nothing more than that bare feet made the prints. So what change is being proposed. We need something concrete to work toward consensus on.Tjholme (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Has Jimmy Wales been sold a line?

The only reason the discussion of this article has reached such unwieldly proportions is because Jimmy Wales has been sold on the case of the "innocenti". Wikipedia is open to abuse by propagandists. The only side allied to a cause is the opposition to the fact of Amanda Knox guilt. All other parties are relatively disinterested. Wikipedia has been hijacked by these frauds and Wales has been sold on it. The article remains extremely biased. Italy is not a third world nation and it's faculty of law is ancient and trustworthy. Just because they do things differently over there doesn't mean they are wrong. 217.35.229.93 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead, readers have actually complained that the article lacked information on either side: for either pro-guilt or anti-guilt . -Wikid77 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here. Jimmy hasn't advocated either side and it was apparent by his comments that he is in the process of fact-finding and investigating. The ones claiming article bias are the ones advocating Knox & Sollecito's innocence who claim the article is slanted towards their guilt. Your not making sense and your allegations are unfounded. This is not a forum. Do you have any reliable sources or changes you'd like to recommend to improve the article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit astounded that the poster above wrote this. Especially when it is clear that there are members of PMF and TJMK working as editors on this article. Are you saying these "colpevolisti" members are disinterested neutral parties and not allied to a site? Why are they members of these sites then? You also have it backwards in that the innocent side is the one that had editors purposefully blocked, still blocked now, so the other side could retain control of the article. I hope that will change. All I want is a fair wiki article, that should be attainable. All it will take is admitting that there is controversy where there is controversy. It doesn't have to say who is right or wrong. Issymo (talk) 02:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy from fringe advocates is not a legitimate addition to the article. Tarc (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, I don't know of the fringe advocates you are talking about. Perhaps you could explain who and where fringe advocates are being added to the MOMK article and why you consider them fringe. Issymo (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You can look over this entire talk page and look at user-created floor plans, demands that detailed forensic evidence supposedly exonerating certain criminal convicts be added, step-by-step "here are things that need to be addressed by this article", and so on. As I said above, there is a movement here to make this into more of a Conspiracy theories regarding the Amanda Knox imprisonment article. Tarc (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate for Jimbo Wales to look into the neutrality of an article when lots of people say it's biased. This is not about impugning the integrity of Italian justice -- it is up to the media, activist organizations, and other "sources" to do that. The task here for whoever is willing to wade into all those books and other sources is to ensure that all of the stuff out there is summarized accurately here - no matter whether it favors guilt or innocence. Wnt (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia cannot selectively exclude listing detailed forensic evidence which might make a suspect seem "exonerated" (free of guilt). Also, there seems to be no basis for claiming editors are pushing "conspiracy theories" about the Amanda Knox imprisonment. I don't follow the idea of how a floor-plan diagram would exonerate a suspect in this case. Unless someone can quote a reliable source proving a floor plan exonerates a suspect, then this line of reasoning should be dropped. -Wikid77 07:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

TARC, How do you feel about controversy from centrist advocates, like the Times Online ("Whatever the truth of the tragic events on the night of November 2, 2007, the evidence against Knox was flimsy at best, inchoate at worst.”), the Wall Street Journal (“What the prosecution succeeded in passing off as DNA evidence is itself enough to raise plenty of doubts about its case”) or famed ‘Mind Hunter’ criminologist John Douglas(“Amanda is innocent—I’m convinced of it.” )

Just because this is a murder case, the court is not infallible. (TARC, you’re not OJ Simpson are you?) This trial leaves many questions unanswered. Knox is not going to disappear from the public eye for some time. All major media cover the appeal. If she is reconvicted, the claims of injustice will keep the matter in the public eye, and if she is freed she will be on the cover of every newspaper and will appear on every talk show the world over, not to mention the movies, books and public appearances. Plus, Knox’s arrest and trial will be the subject of many a college paper for years to come.

So, it’s important that Wikipedia get it right. Any right thinking person can see that it is possible to reasonably conclude that Knox could be innocent, and, apparently, it is also possible for a reasonable person to believe in her guilt. Therefore, imho, Wikepedia should write an article that allows the reader to understand the legitimacy of the controversies. It will take a little bit of exposition and elucidation to get the details of the arguments right. I think that is okay. It’s not like we have to worry about running out of ink.Moodstream (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would only add a friendly correction to what user Berean Hunter said above. Knox-Sollecito supporters are not the only ones who thought the original article was slanted and lacked neutrality. Jimbo Wales thought that too and pointed to a number of specific problems, many having to do with the rather odd behavior of previous administrators. Truly neutral editors concluded the same thing and have started a very healthy process of examination and correction. It is not Wikipedia's job to take sides in the controversy. It IS Wikipedia's job to make sure readers know there is a controversy. Part of that means including the views of reliable sources who have taken issue with the verdict. Readers should also understand in very general terms what evidence led to conviction and the way the defense attacked that evidence on a point by point basis. PietroLegno (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To respond to some comments above, the idea that Sollecito and Knox may be innocent is not fringe in any meaning of the word, and definitely not by the definition of WP:FRINGE used by Wikipedia. To even raise that argument shows a colossal amount of bias or lack of understanding. There is an unresolved court case right now, and the appeal is open to questioning everything about the original trial. If you look at outside expert opinion on the topic, it does not in any way support the idea that the people who support the Sollecito and Knox are fringe in the slightest. The concept that this article only recently was allowed to even mention controversy in the lead at all shows extreme bias. Frankly, there are a good number of editors whose comments and actions here are extreme violations of Wikipedia policy. Now I certainly do not advocate slanting the article the other way either, but for crying out loud, the state of this article for the past many months has been a disgrace. There are tons of reliable sources showing experts questioning this case, but the content still is overwhelmingly slanted to hide or minimize this information. Any time any small progress is made making the article come closer to meeting WP:NPOV standards there are countless attacks made here and on individual users' talk page by very partisan editors trying to shout them down. That must stop. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy. Per my comments at ANI yesterday, this is not a fringe issue. Too much energy on this page seems devoted at taking shots at editors or Wikipedia in general. There needs to be focus on the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree there is a bunch of highly involved editors here in two camps. I would ask anyone who cares whether Knox did it or didn't do it to stop edit warring over that here. I can name names (but you know who you are anyways) if users would be prepared to take a self imposed break that would benefit the article a lot. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that even a final court verdict (even an execution, in some countries) does not make claims of innocence a "fringe theory". What might make them a "fringe theory" would be if you can't find very many sources that support innocence, and those that do are obscure, highly partisan, etc., and meanwhile you have lots of good sources concluding guilt. However, if you can call a court case "controversial", this is prima facie evidence that neither side is "fringe". Wnt (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This gets to the nub of the problem. The word "fringe" isn't all that helpful, because of its specific meaning within WP. There is clearly some sort of "controversy" over the case. This means that Wikipedia should report the controversy. But it does not mean that the article should be treated as if it is about a controversy, as opposed to a murder. The fact that a campaign group exists in relation to the case is not, in itself, an excuse for trying to make the article a platform for the campaign group. What would be helpful would be to think about what the most significant points of controversy are (as reported in reliable secondary sources). Those, we report. But the existence of controversy does not justify pouring through sources in order to report (and invent) every and any ill-founded objection to the verdict in the case. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That's nicely said, FormerIP. Off2riorob makes a good point too. Those with a "view" on the guilt or otherwise of those involved, should stay away from editing this lest it become any more of a repository for latest rumors, campaigning, and speculation. NPOV dictates that we follow the sources, with due regard for the weight that they carry. The exact mix of sources should be conservative, should follow the news wave and not try to keep up with it. In the debate about what exact shape the article should take, we would do better to look to experienced editors; though the views of all are welcome, even those who only or mainly edit this one topic, only those with wide experience are likely to find the consensus to make this article better than it is. In its current shape it looks fanboyish; the room diagram is particularly regrettable, in my opinion. This is a serious article about a murder. It should look like that, and not a Facebook page. We should err on the side of saying less, not more. Finally, I'd like all name-calling to stop; even the heading of this article makes me a little uneasy. I am obviously an editor rather than an administrator on this article at this point, but I would be sorry to have to visit WP:WQA or WP:ANI for any further attempts to criticize individual editors here. That's all for now. --John (talk) 07:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully John, I would have to disagree with FormerIP's assessments here in relation to this article. First, yes, this article is about a murder, but also it is a murder that has brought about a lot controversy. Under FormerIP's principle, we are simply to accept that a large part of this article cannot be "about a controversy". Two questions I have. The first is, why not? If that is a large part of the story, then why are we precluding ourselves from documenting it based on some unknown principle that FormerIP seems to have created out of thin air. Secondly, what "ill-foul founded" and "invented" objections to the verdict is FormerIP talking about? It's phrases like these that indicate that editors are subjectively assessing sources based on their already preconceived notions. Additionally, there is more than one "campaign group" here, and that is very obvious. Lastly, if FormerIP is worried about campaign groups, he would have done well to not post on the website of a "campaign group" which he admitted to doing just the other day. If appearances mean anything, that looks pretty bad. The room diagram you may have a point about. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

I respectfully take issue with several of John's points: 1) The idea that we should follow credible resources is unimpeachable; the problem is that the application of this principle in the past went badly awry and led to the rejection of very credible sources. 2)My impression is that the article is currently being edited in the main by editors who are highly experienced and who are definitely moving things in a direction that conforms to Wikipedia's stated ideals. 3)The disparagement of so called SPA accounts is mystifying. Why should people be disparaged for focusing on an area about which they know a great deal? 4) I disagree strongly with the suggestion that there is anything wrong with the room diagram; if there is anything wrong with the look of the article it is that there is a photograph of only one of the principles. We should be able to get pics of Sollecito, Knox, and Guede too. 5)I find the idea that we should pare down this article or be briefer to be simply wrongheaded. We have plenty of room to expand the article and if I am not mistaken highly experienced editors and the founder have said just that. 6) We should all strive to be civil, but part of this surely involves avoiding accusations of name calling in cases where others might see just robust discussion and fair commentary.PietroLegno (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I happen to think Mr. Wales is a pretty smart apple.The thought of this being started and the time wasted being controversial upon this, is flabbergasting. Is there really such a need? This same time could be spent on the article at hand, that is actually a controversy within a Middle School classroom at this time where children of the age of 14 are actually studying this case, and looking at all of this and saying ... REALLY? Are these editors to be of intelligent adults here? This is to be a neutral fact article. Why the continued issues here? Why attempt to discredit Mr. Wales at all? He has stated his agenda for this.It is clear to be a neutral article, what is so hard to figure out there? Secondly, did we all skip those top little boxes that speak of conduct and appropriate ways to act here? Thank you kindly.....--Truth Mom (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Move to delete this entire section from the page. This is not discussion of a proposed edit or addition but rather simply bickering that tends to polarize the editors until they appear to be two factions in an edit war. "Has Jimbo Wales been sold a line?" is not even a proper topic of discussion here as it has nothing to do with the substance of the article and serves only to distract from the real issues. We need to get back on task here.Tjholme (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Stop adding comments and this section will be archived and largely forgotten in a few days. (Unfortunately, you just reset the clock). --Footwarrior (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to add the major missing details

Over the years, readers have asked, again, why this case is notable, with so many other questionable murders (a Google Search: "murder or suicide" gave 219,000 results), so we continually tried to note, per WP:LEDE, how Knox & Sollecito have limited-evidence issues, and the head prosecutor is also convicted but not yet in jail, while prosecuting other convicted people (now, tell me that is unnecessary information?). However, try a Google search for the 3 words: murder Italy students– currently Kercher ranks high in Google's vast database of webpages: this concerns young college students. Also, we know, from pageview stats, that this case has been among the Top 1000 most-viewed articles, for years. When so many readers want information, then it is bizarre to find excuses to keep removing hundreds of words of sourced text, every week. However, the article does not even mention the one large item found in Meredith's room which belonged to Knox, nor is there an explanation of why the monetary theft was considered 300 euros (~$420) nor what became of the 2 credit cards (etc.). The article seems far too hollow. -Wikid77 10:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The goal of those who have been editing the article is to remove any suggestion of controversy. To that end they prefer to have a skeleton of an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 10:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That is totally lacking in respect to Meredith. It is sad to see her death and an article that is to be concerning that death, in the frame that it is. Shame is the word that comes to mind.--Truth Mom (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New "Oggi" Article

There is a new Oggi article out. Here is the title and lead paragraph:

The ‘collapse’ of the charges at the appeal court.

By Giangavino Sulas April 2011, Perugia. The scientific proof, finally entrusted to experts nominated by the appeals court and not just to the police, is deteriorating and opens up disturbing questions about the procedures used. The witnesses, who when they were not drug addicts (like Hekuran K. and Antonio C.), have problems of deafness, of physical as well as mental health serious enough to be hospitalized in the psychiatric department. (That is the case with Nara C.).

You can read a translation at Candace Dempsey's blog, or, if you prefer, go to the Oggi web site and translate by some other means. It is useful as a summary of what has been happening in the appeal and an indication of why we need to be careful to present both sides in the article. PietroLegno (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

links?LedRush (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/ Issymo (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

• Again, I have changed last names to just the initial ("K." or "C.") - please remember WP:BLP restrictions also applies to talk-pages. If the people are no longer living, then full names can be used on talk-pages. -Wikid77 20:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki, can you please explain the last name thing? Both the people whose last names you changed have been reported on using their last names in the press for years. They are both public figures. Just curious what the policy is behind this? Not saying I have a problem with it or anything, but being that you are a pretty experienced editor, could you perhaps clarify? (GeniusApprentice (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC))

• See: WP:Biographies of living persons#People who are relatively unknown, and consider what can be said about drug use, etc. -Wikid77 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This does look like something everyone should immediately sit up and take note of, although I have to admit I haven't read it because I am still pondering the enormous ramifications of Oggi's cover story [8]. --FormerIP (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody please add the information to the article that ear witness Nara C. has spent time in mental hospital and is near deaf according to Oggi magazine, thanks. Her many false claims about reading about the murder in the newspaper next morning and seeing Knox and Sollecito near the parking gagrage when they were documented to be somewhere else should also be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop using Nara's family name and please stop repeating these statements that are rather clearly in breach of WP:BLP as Wikid77 as shown you above. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to say to handle with care the "Oggi" popular weekly magazine revelations. Oggi is an entertainment magazine, comparable to the most scandalistic English tabloids or American TV shows. IMHO any addition to the article should be backed by other more reliable sources.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Grifomaniacs's warning, here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nara C's full name is already in the article. What are you talking about when you say don't use the family name? It's already there. The information from Oggi needs to go in the article. Oggi is not going to claim something like a stay in a mental hospital without proof. Anyone attempting to exclude this information is applying censorship to the article to suit their own agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have two questions:

1. Is Oggi considered a RS on wikipedia?

2. Is the SeattlePI article considered a RS on this topic (seeing as it seems to be based on the Oggi article)?

If the statements in the article are true, I believe they must be included in the article. I will take a look for some other news sources.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that the Oggi article is an anticipation of some information emerging from the proceedings. Unless more reliable sources will back these allegations, I think we should handle with care either the Oggi article, either the dedicated blog post. Finally, I invite CodyHoeBibby to moderate his tones, the matter here is not the information, but the source. BLP is a very important issue as well because this information could put at a stake the reputation of Ms Nara C.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't object to handling the article with care. I introduced it as a point of information and to demonstrate that certain defense claims were apparently being taken very seriously. We need to be sure in this entire article that defense claims are explicated fully. But events are unfolding rapidly and there is no need to get ahead of ourselves. In about a month, the experts will file their DNA report and we will know a good deal more then. I spent a good deal of time looking over OGGI the other day. It is a very reliable source--not only because of the articles it has written on this case but because it published Maria D'Elia's book and it's critique. OGGI is infinitely more reliable than, say, the Daily Mail.PietroLegno (talk) 10:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people believe if THEY write or claim something it makes it so. Claiming Oggi is not reliable is like claiming Tina Browns, Newsweek is not reliable. Daily Mail is CLEARLY a tabloid & I think meant to be? Idk, maybe Tina Brown thought she could make Daily Mail be = to Huff Post, a liberal honest rag-zine that unfortunately was bought by AOL & allows anyone to write an article if they sign up (I think).--Truth Mom (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi is a widely read Italian weekly magazine with an editorial board. It's the Italian equivalent to Time or Newsweek and meets the definition of WP:RS. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The consensus is that Oggi is a reliable source. Let's get their information about Nara C added to the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look very much like a consensus. Either, way, I don't think anyone would dispute that a translation of the article on a blog isn't a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference can be directly to the Italian source like several other references in this article. I understand why you would want to exclude the information from the article, given your agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would want to know what the source said in Italian, rather that trusting that a translation on a blog is accurate. But you're missing my main point. There isn't a consensus for using the source in any language. --FormerIP (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. As other posters have stated Oggi is a reliable source within Wikipedia rules. Your attempt to exclude a reliable source is driven by your well-known personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi magazine is at least as reliable a source as the Daily Beast; it is not the sign of an instructed sense of modern media to believe otherwise and it is more than a little disappointing, if not entirely daunting and defeating of the purpose of those gathered here, to find "editors", albeit some wet-behind-the-ears but some not-so, as unreliably instinctive as they seem to wish us to believe they are when it comes to determining what an "entertainment" magazine that is "comparable to the most scandalistic (sic) English tabloids or American TV shows" is and what it is not.Fancourt (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

At what point do we consider the biased 'Former IP' overruled and include the mainstream Italian news Magazine Oggi's statements in the article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Oggi to form an opinion. Why don't we post this question on the reliable sources noticeboard?LedRush (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd support that. Oggi doesn't seem to have been discussed at WP:RSN previously, if a search of the archives is accurate. This is a sensitive subject, and I agree with the users above who rightly point to concerns with regard to WP:BLP. I would also repeat Grifomaniacs' request that CodyJoeBibby moderate the tone of his comments. SuperMarioMan 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Oggi magazine sells 521,000 copies per week and is estimated to reach 3,460,000 readers per week. It's the number one selling news magazine in Italy. Source: http://www.rcspubblicita.it/mezzien/index.jsp;jsessionid=6E82808E57976D0D9CC1BA50B4DB26F9?page=/mezzien/master/descrizione.jsp?id=88*doc=t

Let's get a second opinion on whether that's a mainstream magazine in Italy. Yes sir, that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 19:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Popularity does not equal reliability. I'm not a reader of the Daily Mail, but I do know that it is one of Britain's most popular newspapers. On the basis of popularity alone, therefore, would you be inclined to disagree with comments above asserting that Oggi is superior to the Daily Mail? Numbers of readers and issues sold have no guaranteed bearing on quality of content - sorry. SuperMarioMan 20:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you. Oggi magazine is the highest circulation news magazine in Italy and is therefore a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules. Oggi is very much a mainstream media source. You personally do not make or police the rules, nor is it in any way your right to tell anyone else to 'moderate their tone' when they say something you disagree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 20:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Being highly circulated helps its case that it is a RS, but it is definitely not dispositive.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)@CodyJoeBibby. You still haven't read the rules, have you!?TMCk (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I just have read the rules on reliable sources. For anyone to claim that the leading Italian weekly news magazine Oggi with a circulation of over 500,000 is not a reliable source is bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not claiming it is not a reliable source. I am saying I don't know enough about it. Could you provide something other than declarative statements and circulation figures in support of your position?LedRush (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Oggi magazine is the highest circulation news magazine in Italy and is therefore a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules." Where do Wikipedia's rules state that there is a neat, positive correlation between circulation and reliability? I was unaware that such a guideline existed, and I don't recall "making" or "policing" rules to the contrary. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments hold little merit. If the number of readers is a measure of the reliability of a publication, then it would seem that phrases such as "trash tabloid" have been coined illogically. SuperMarioMan 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi magazine is the primary news magazine in Italy with a very significant circulation. Your question appears to be highly subjective. What exactly are you asking me to provide apart from circulation figures and self-evident declarations that the magazine is mainstream? Why don't you go and ask the publishers of Newsweek or Time Magazine the same questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't OGGI be a reliable source? It is the Italian version of Newsweek --Truth Mom (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently no matter the huge circulation or good reputation of a news magazine, that means nothing, Truth Mom. What we're dealing with here is a blatant attempt to censor a Wikipedia article. Absolutely brazen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Oggi is not the primary news magazine in Italy, it is rather amongst the top selled popular weekly magazines in Italy, with fellows Panorama, Gente, Novella 2000, TV Sorrisi e Canzoni, Donna Moderna, Famiglia Cristiana, L'Espresso (source: Prima Comunicazione, data here http://www.primaonline.it/2011/03/25/90578/settimanali-dicembreanno-2010/). It is the typical mag you may read at the hairdresser... I am not saying that Oggi couldnt be used as a source, I only suggest to handle with care its revelations. I am sure that if this scoop will be confirmed, then other mayor news agencies will broadcast it. I would wait other sources backing Oggi revelations before adding them into this article.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for explaining this. --Truth Mom (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This article quotes Paul Ciolino who spoke to Nara C's niece and nephew who live in the same building. They are quoted as stating that Nara has spent time in mental hospital and has not left the house in 10 years. http://www.groundreport.com/Business/Head-of-Rome-Police-in-Amanda-Knox-Case-I-knew-she/2937867 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

This video hosted by the West Seattle Herald shows Paul Ciolino stating that he spoke to Nara C's niece and nephew who live in her apartment building and confirmed that she has a history of mental illness and has spent time in mental hospital. http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/04/04/news/slideshow-amanda-knox-panel-makes-case-her-innoce CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I posted on the Reliable Sources Admin noticeboard to get a decision as to whether Oggi is a reliable source for the information about Nara C. They responded that for this information Oggi is a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Italian_news_magazine_.27Oggi.27_a_reliable_source_within_Wikipedia_rules.3F Could someone please add the information concerning Nara's stay in mental hospital and her near deafness to the article, thank you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You've only had one commenter over there, which isn't really a pass yet. What is the relevant quote from the source? --FormerIP (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a pass because I notice other posts on the noticeboard which are answered by one commenter. You do not make the rules here. I have followed Wikipedia procedure in establishing that Oggi is a reliable source. I don't think I am able to edit the MoMK article myself so i have notified the original poster Pietro Legno of the favourable decision. It's up to him if he wants to add the info, but hopefully he will do. All we need is a few words detailing the alleged issues with the witness and a link to the Oggi article. Let the reader decide for themselves whether the witness is reliable. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me how to do one of those footnotes which go to a link at the bottom of the page? Cheers, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am bad at these, but I usually just copy and paste from another reference in the section (in this case, use one from a website and not a book). Copy from the "<ref>" to the "<ref/>" and fill in the appropriate info (ref name, article name, url, access date, etc.). Give it a shot and I will try and clean up what you do, if necessary. Then, someone else will clean up my mistakes :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) 09:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Berean. I'm trying but this is far from straightforward. It doesn't help when people are itching to delete what you add within seconds of posting it! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was LedRush but my signature got out there when I repaired his post which was breaking the page. Slow down a little first. The BLP issue needs a little discussion below.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues

The mental health aspect is a BLP problem as well as not necessarily being as relevant to the case as you may think. People with mental health issues may still serve as witnesses just as children may serve as witnesses. That fact may not be particularly relevant to the case unless it can be proven to be correlated with making false statements directly and not just alluded to. The partial deafness, on the other hand, is a pertinent fact and not a BLP issue. I would suggest that the statement is moderated to reflect the deafness aspect and leave the mental health issue out. This would seem to be a good compromise and still within bounds of policy.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Negative. I have spent considerable time today overcoming the blatant obstructionism of some of the people associated with this article, to the extent that as a brand new user I have had to jump through Wikipedia hoops just to get some basic, relevant and reliably sourced recent information included in the article. The information regarding Nara C's mental health issues is reliably sourced and relevant, and it stays in. If it is removed I will interpret this as vandalism and will go to Jimbo Wales if necessary. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

First, notice the semi-colon that I've introduced into your previous statement...that helps you format your responses. I realize that you are a new user and trying to help you. I'm not trying to obstruct you. I'm pointing out aspects of policy that really do apply here that need discussed. I think you just missed one of my points which is that the mental health issues really don't come into play here unless an attorney makes more of it and demonstrates its relevance to the previously tendered testimony. I'm sorry that you are frustrated but you won't get very far in trying to push things here and it will probably only make you more frustrated. You can ask for guidance at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You are no judge of what construes vandalism yet and throwing that term around will only backfire on you...and you are free to appeal to Jimbo; I don't think the substance of your previous statement would prevail. Try discussing things here calmly; we're not fighting a fire here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Having read the material... that seems mostly to be something being used to undermine the witness in the media (and I guess at the trial). Generally we do not deal with such material unless it becomes very pertinent; i.e. the court rejects their evidence because of it. I don't see that as having happened (yet?) so I see no reason to include issues of mental health. It's just more POV pushing. Oggi is probably not the greatest of sources here, it is tabloid (someone likened it to Time above... not by half, I am afraid). They have editorial oversight, but tend to be more gossipy than anything else. I'd treat it about the same as the Daily Mail (perhaps a bit worse). --Errant ^(chat!) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

2 other witnesses in this case, Kokomani and Curatolo, have been discredited due for the most part to mental health issues. What is different about this witness? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the names Kokomani and Curatolo in the article itself, but continually re-inserting a single sentence that discredits a witness, sourced to a questionable blog translation, is a disruptive exercise. As Berean Hunter has said, there must be a properly sourced connection between the mental health question and witness credibility. SuperMarioMan 15:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that deleting sourced content from proven reliable resources is disruptive. What is the BLP issue? Poor hearing or mental health are relevant for witnesses at any trial.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that this is a reliable source for a BLP. Is there a better source for this material? If not I do not think we can use it. --John (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, please read through ErrantX's comment. Mere mentions of deafness and mental problems are side issues unless a source has confirmed a connection to the reliability of the witness - note the words "very pertinent". One must also be cautious about reliance on a blog translation, as opposed to the text of the original Italian publication, as the immediate source cited in the article. SuperMarioMan 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have read it. The mental health and hearing capacity of an ear-witness to an event is extremely notable and important. Also, no one is relying on a blog translation of anything. We are relying on what a reporter for the SeattlePI (one who is an expert in this field) has reported that Oggi has written. I really don't see the issues here.

One of the issues that makes this board so difficult is with regards to process. If a citation is broken, and one knows how to fix it, one shouldn't delete the cite and the statement. They should fix it. If only the mental health issue is a BLP concern, don't delete the citation and the statement, delete the relevant section. It's edits like these which prove certain editors aren't acting collaboratively to make the article better, but are instead using pretexts to continue a content dispute to push a specific POV. This statement is made generally, not specifically about what happened today, nor is it directed at any one editor.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Oggi article makes the insinuation that because Nara has spent time in a mental hospital she is unreliable. It doesn't say why she was in the hospital, when she was in the hospital or offer any explanation for how that might affect her ability to testify, just that because she was in a hospital she surely can't be reliable. If you're willing to accept a blanket statement that ANY reason someone would be in a mental hospital makes them unreliable and that ANY time they have been in the hospital counts (since, say, 20 years ago makes a difference today), go for it. I think it's a pretty low shot, but if that's the standard wanted for this article - that any insinuation in a reliable source goes, no matter how shady or poorly defined, then go for it. I think it lowers the overall quality of the article to stoop to such additions. If it materially affects the case then it's going to be made by the defense and at some point that will be in a solid source. Until then, I think such material shouldn't be in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX - I don't care what you personally think about OGGI. The administrators' noticeboard on reliable sources has ruled today that OGGI is a reliable source. Your opinion is therefore irrelevant. In my view, I don't see how poor hearing or mental health issues are not relevant to the credibility of a witness whose testimony can destroy someone's life. Why are people attempting to censor this article? It's not me who claims these things. It's OGGI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, one editor at the board has said as much. Furthermore, WP:RSN isn't staffed solely by administrators. SuperMarioMan 15:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

CodyJoeBiddy - you are essentially saying that you will accept any additions to the article that serve to negatively portray someone connected to this case, regardless of how vague and undefined those portrayals are, as long as a source says them about the person. Is that a correct statement of your view? So, completely made up scenario, if a source said that Amanda always wore mismatched socks, indicating that he had no fashion sense and thus obviously a bad person, you'd accept and support that addition. Ravensfire (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that you (Ravensfire) would redact your personal attacks above.LedRush (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Asking an editor confirmation of his view about an editorial matter is not a personal attack in any way. It's a WP:POINTY request, but far short of an PA. Indeed, compared to many other statements made on this talk page that have not generated a warning from you, it is almost pleasant. Ravensfire (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The question has been asked, and it has been answered. OGGI is a reliable source for this information. What authority do you have to overrule a decision made by the WP:RSN noticeboard? Your multi-coloured username gives the impression you are someone important. What exactly is your status on Wikipedia? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

He's an Italian plumber. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha-ha - not really! The red, orange and yellow look nice, and also provide a vivid contrast against the blue of standard signatures, making it easier for me to find my posts on talk pages. Any user can make their own special signature - it does not indicate particular status. Back to the actual subject of the discussion: the noticeboards themselves do not hold some sort of supreme authority - instead, they serve to give a recommendation. Many other editors here have raised concerns about the use of the source in question. SuperMarioMan 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about Ravensfire, but I'm sure that your attempt to put words nothing like anything i have actually said into my mouth is a breach of several Wikipedia policies. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope - I'm trying to understand your editorial view. Is your view that any opinion about a person connected with this case expressed by a source is acceptable for addition to this article and that you would support that addition? That's what I'm looking for. Yes, I strongly disagree with the addition as I've stated, but I want to make sure I absolutely understand your view on this. Ravensfire (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not monitor everyone on the article, but I do warn people as if I'm passing out candy, so I'm very surprised you haven't noticed until now. Regardless, it is best for everyone to remain civil on an article that generates this much passion.LedRush (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about people who testified in court to the detriment of two young people. Of course their reliability can be scrutinized and examined. Of course OGGI is a reliable source and the reporter, Sulas, has been covering this case a long time. I am reminded again of Jimbo Wales telling us that it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be gratuitously inventing reasons for declaring perfectly good sources out. If a reputable reporter writing for a reputable news outlet covers something, of course it is reliable. It would should take the most extraordinary proof to convince us otherwise. I also think Candace Dempsey's translation is fine--it comports closely to the other translation out there. If the translation of the Massei report by a bunch of anonymous people on a pro-guilt blog can be considered acceptable, it is hard to imagine how we could fail to accept the translation of a person whose bona fides are known. PietroLegno (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't even need to rely on Dempsey's translation: We merely say that she has reported that Oggi has said something, which she did. The translation comes at the end of her report.LedRush (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my view on this - if we get something that says that this caused the court to discount her testimony, I think it's completely relevant and absolutely should be included. Until then, we don't know if it's notable to the people that matter - the appeals court. I don't think Dempsey's view is enough to meet that criteria. From an RSN view, either Oggi or Dempsey is going to be enough to source the statement. I don't discount that. It's from a notability and BLP view that I have concerns. If it turns out that the court did not think this undefined mental health condition impacted her testimony, then we've needlessly put harmful information about a living person into an article. BLP says to be conservative, and to that view I think we should not add the information until we have something that says it did impact the case. Ravensfire (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean with regarding to the mental health, not the hearing. The hearing of an ear-witness is of the absolute utmost importance. I hope we can all agree on that.LedRush (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Mostly the mental health stuff, yes. I think most people would react negatively to something like that being said about them. I've having insanely long times loading the page and saving edits, so I actually rephrased my post above slightly, thinking the first edit didn't save, and then got the lovely edit conflict. A point that I added is if we even know if this was something the defense raised as an issue? That's not in the Oggi article or Dempsey article, and I'd be comfortable including it under that basis. And really, that's true for for both mental health and deafness. If they were raised as issues by the defense or considered by the court, I think they are fair game to include in the article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd come down vaguely in favour of the deafness being mentioned; although a better source would be nice. And I would like to see it raised at the appeal (i.e. shown as relevant). If it is never raised at the appeal it loses some relevance for me. That we only have one (fairly tabloidy) source is concerning for now. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire and ErrantX are correct. This subsection is not about whether Oggi, Dempsey, or Fisher are reliable sources. The RS noticeboard has nothing to do with the issue I've raised. This thread is about BLP issues. If Oggi states that the hearing problems were brought up at trial then it would be pertinent in this article without a doubt but until the defense attorney raises this issue, it isn't. The mental health issue runs a deeper problem because unlike the claims of deafness, it can be construed as part of a character assassination by either the press or a defense attorney. Even if an attorney raises this latter issue at trial, it would not be worthy to add here on Wikipedia unless it had an impact on the case through a judge's ruling. This is not censorship but is rather protection of individuals from being disparaged unnecessarily. We are not allowing Trial by media here, we are not the news and we can wait for these issues to have their day in court before reporting such things.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Facts are facts regardless of whether somebody wearing a wig in Perugia adjudicates them. Reliable sources are reliable sources and what they say can be reported. Nara claimed to hear something. A reliable source says she is almost deaf. This might indicate she did not in fact hear anything. The reader needs to decide for themselves. You cannot continue to censor the article with a view to witholding pertinent information in the light of Jimbo Wales' recent intervention in this article on exactly this issue. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My thinking on that is "meh"; just because it is reported in a RS (and this is not a good source for BLP material on its own) doesn't make it pertinent or relevant. The bottom line is; I would much prefer to see more sources identifying the relevance, and for it to be used in the appeal. If it isn't, and this remains the only source, well, that puts it in UNDUE territory for me. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. One of your friends has already deleted the OGGI reference to Nara's alleged deafness. Ultimately this censorship won't succeed. The truth always comes out in the end. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I moved it to a more appropriate place in the article...in the appeals section. You should understand that I came to this page after seeing this on Jimbo's talkpage with concerns that something might be wrong here. I'm not from either the 'guilty' or the 'innocent' advocacy camps. If anything, I'm an advocate for Wikipedia and remaining neutral.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the near-deafness can be considered not relevant. If an ear witness is near-deaf, it is relevant whether or not raised by trial. Res ipsa loquitor.

Regarding placement: I think this belongs where it originally was. If this is raised on appeal, it can go there too. But the near-deafness is something about the actual witness that exists regardless of whether or not there was a trial.LedRush (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No writer in their right mind will begin placing rebuttal material before a layout of events. Remember that the article is being written for the uninitiated and should be in chronological order. And the correct legal assertion here is Ipse dixit.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about rebuttal info: it's a descriptive fact about the witness. Also, my Latin is rusty, but "the thing speaks for itself" seems relevant when saying why an argument need not be explicitly proven, while "he said it himself" doesn't seem to make sense at all in this context. I did not mean this as a legal premise, but whether used colloquially or in law, "res ipsa loquitor" is the correct phrase.LedRush (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

At the present, we have but one source stating an assertion...which hardly makes it a fact. Ipse dixit in this case means Oggi has said it, therefore it must be which doesn't hold water. We need more than Oggi to substantiate something into becoming a fact. Other writers repeating it because they saw it in Oggi doesn't count, either.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that latin phrase has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I am talking about the relevance of information regarding the hearing ability of an ear-witness. Res ipsa loquitor is the correct colloquial and legal phrase for my ideas and arguments.LedRush (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, my only concern is that this is one not very good source. I would like to see more; otherwise it strikes me as suspicious (we shouldn't put in these things, which are basically meant to undermine the witness, if no one reliably able to comment on the relevance.. uh... comments). In terms of placement it makes more sense chronologically in the appeals segment. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoever wants to include this needs to find the original article or a RS reporting on it.TMCk (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've also got some problems about the deafness claim for the same reasons as I have for mental health. Dempsey is the only source for "near-deafness", and appears to be an embellishment by her. Her translation of Oggi only says that the witness "... have problems of deafness ...". No indication of what degree of deafness. No indication if it was enough to prevent her from hearing something. No indication if it was something raised by the defense. What if the "problems of deafness" is a 10% hearing loss? Or she wears a hearing aid? Ravensfire (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My resident Italian translator (who is currently making dinner :D) says that you're correct, "near-deafness" isn't a good translation or interpretation. "hearing problems" would be a better way to put it in her opinion. But we do not have a reliable source on that; is translation by ourselves considered OR? I don't know --Errant ^(chat!) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully an Italian dinner! (Mmm, getting hungry, might have to do something Italian myself!) That's fuzzy about the translations - usually something translated by a human is considered good unless/until someone objects. Machine translations are harder. Where a human would put something to indicate areas they aren't sure about, machine's don't. The phrasing tends to be awkward, and meanings can shift - see "hearing problems" vs "problems with deafness". Here, we have the words Dempsey used "near-deafness" and the translation she based that on "problems with deafness". Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a PDF file of the article. It's not yet available online. Candace Dempsey has translated the article. That's why I linked to her English translation. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, Dempsey has reported on it in the SeattlePI.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have a BLP concern for the defendants that we are saying in the events surrounding the murder that an ear witness heard a scream at a certain time, but we aren't reporting on RSs which report that she is near-deaf. If we can't report on the ability of the witness to testify to what she heard, we should remove any mention of the testimony.LedRush (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? It was entered as evidence in the trial was it not? Seems relevant; you're stretching the definition of a BLP problem by a long way for that one I am afraid. It's not really helpful to go down that road. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify one thing: Dempsey's blog is NOT a RS and cannot be used. "'Editor's note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content."TMCk (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Ouch, that introduces the problem... in light of creative translation and TMCk's comment... do we have another source? this one is rapidly falling apart :S --Errant ^(chat!) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It has been accepted for a long time that Dempsey's articles on SeattlePI are RSs. I see no reason to change that policy now because TMCK doesn't want us to put certain info into the article.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No it hasn't. They are definitely not RS. If there is anything currently sourced to them in the article, it should be removed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I give a damn about the info and who established that her blog is a RS? Certainly not the RS noticeboard. Cheers TMCk (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The combination of an unreliable and partisan blog, no editorial review (as highlighted by TMCk above) and unreliable "translation" means that arguments for re-inclusion of such questionable content hold little water. In full agreement with many of users above. SuperMarioMan 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We have long considered Dempsey's articles on the SeattlePI as reliable and there is editorial oversight. Furthermore, if you take out the mental health statement, there is no questionable content (even with it I think it's not questionable, but without it, no one seems to be arguing that the ability of an ear-witness to actually hear is not relevant or brings up any BLP concerns). I must say, I am flabbergasted by this latest turn of events.LedRush (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How does the supposed existence of editorial review reconcile agree with TMCk's observation that "authors are solely responsible for content" (a statement from the site itself)? I don't really understand. SuperMarioMan 19:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no way that a blog "not subject to editorial control" is a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the blogger. Hipocrite (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Who defines it as unreliable or questionable? Those are unsubstantiated claims. All she is doing is translating an existing article in Oggi. Oggi itself is a reliable source. If you don't like Dempsey's translation, in a few days the original article will be available online. Then the reference is going in the Wikipedia article to allow readers to decide for themselves. You can delay this process, but i don't think you'll stop it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP issue proposal

Can't we just take out the witness' name and report what the SeattlePI reported? There's not BLP issue if we are talking about a nameless witness, right?LedRush (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. See above.TMCk (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What above?LedRush (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is no good.TMCk (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were, we don't get around BLP by omitting names. She's still identifiable. I think BLP would be satisfied just by finding a more solid source, but leaving out the name doesn't make it okay to use poor sourcing. --FormerIP (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where the admin noticeboard on reliable sources stated categorically that OGGI is a reliable source for the information I added to the article? It's been a busy day, so I understand if you did. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There never was an admin.TMCk (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One ten-word affirmation from one uninvolved editor (as of the time of writing) does not mean that Oggi is "categorically" a reliable source - there have been additional replies since. At any rate, that the actual cited source is a blog quoting Oggi seems to be the larger point of contention at this moment in time. SuperMarioMan 20:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The comments by Errant and John would seem to be completely irrelevant to the question as to whether OGGI is a reliable source, since they are both actively engaged in editing the MoMK article. Am i missing something there? does the phrase 'Nemo Iudex in Causa Sua' ring any bells? The only comment from a neutral party said unequivocally that OGGI is a reliable source in this context. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording "seems to be a reliable source" does not suggest much of an "unequivocal" statement. Coincidentally, this addition would appear to put quite a dent in the fragile, alleged "consensus" that has been the primary cause of the recent edit war. SuperMarioMan 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been a busy day so you probably missed the fact that i removed any reference to mental health issues about 7 hours ago. Of course, if somebody is alleged to have spent time in mental hospital, then surely this can be verified through hospital records etc. How did OGGI get the information? We'll have to see. Do you think they just made it up? Pretty dangerous for them to do that, given Italy's Calunnia laws. But keep on Wikilawyering. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, considering that Biographies of Living Persons is very much a relevant policy to bear in mind when one edits at this topic, it is very much necessary to ensure that anything and everything that goes into the article is properly sourced. BLP makes no compromises, and self-published translations of material drawn from a tabloid-ish magazine, appearing on a less-than-impartial blog site, would not prima facie appear to merit the function of citation in this instance. You have also failed to prove that any reliable source has yet linked the hearing and mental problems with witness credibility - until and unless this occurs, the text in question remains objectionable. BLPs are not intended to serve as repositories for innuendo and unspoken conclusions. Sorry for all this excessive "WikiLawyering", but since the BLP point has now been made clear, I trust that you understand how vital it is to edit in a conservative manner. Avoidance of POV-pushing and refusals to get the point are also conducive to helping BLP talk page discussions progress more smoothly. SuperMarioMan 23:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been digging for a better source and am yet to find one. I am slowly coming to the view that this is just scurrilous gossip as part of a "hit piece", the same sort of stuff that regularly throws up BLP issues. The original piece appears to be intentionally quite vague about the detail.. I suppose at some point we could address this as an opinion piece, but it makes me uncomfortable. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Cody, the old source was to a Dempsey article on the Oggi one. You can source directly to Oggi, but it is frowned upon to use foreign language references because they are hard to verify (though you can do this). I'm not sure why the idea of a witness being hard of hearing raises this many hackles (though I do understand BLP concerns for mental health info), but I don't see how we can leave in the witness statements if we can't describe her ability to hear.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Uh, as I said, that was evidence used at the trial. If that is invalidated or argued against then this material certainly becomes relevant. But the more I read the original piece the more it just looks like advocacy disguised as jorunalism, I'm not sure it is sufficient to identify it as significant without further sourcing. As I said; it is vague. I'm not sure how that can be a basis for removing the other material (straw man?). BTW the implication was made above that Seattle PI was a RS, but I am concerned with the fact that Dempsey's work is basically a blog and can't be considered part of the papers editorial scope... so I opened a discussion here to clarify the extent we can consider it reliable. But my gut feeling is that mostly it is not reliable for anything other than Dempsey's opinion. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

How exactly is a translation of an existing Italian article an 'opinion'? Are you suggesting Candace Dempsey has intentionally lied about the content of the article? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, she exaggerated a fair amount on at least one claim. Her translation of Oggi is "problems with deafness". An editor above said that a better translation might be "hard of hearing". How do you go from that to "near-deafness"? Ravensfire (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So just to be clear, without any of us seeing the original Italian text, you're stating that an unspecified Wikipedia editor's opinion about the correct translation of Italian text which we haven't seen is better than Candace Dempsey's? This is what you're saying? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, if Dempsey said "problems with deafness" your statement of "near-deafness" is pushing the limit. Dempsey is a reporter, but she also has a clear POV on this case. It seems better to get transations from people with a less distinct POV on this issue, no?LedRush (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any cast-iron distinction between 'near-deaf' and 'problems with deafness' to be honest. How big are the 'problems with deafness'? It's not specified. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that you were using the most extreme example. If anything, if there are BLP issues, we should take the least extreme (yet reasonable) example.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm saying Dempsey said "near-deafness". Her translation, the one she used to write the article, says "problems with deafness". That's just a slight exaggeration on her part (sarcasm alert). I'm reinforcing my point by noting that we have some confirmation that the original Italian is not saying "near-deafness". Ravensfire (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're replying to, Raven, but my post above was intended to agree with you.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was replying to Cody. Indents are a pain at times. Ravensfire (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous point to make, 'Ravensfire'. Do you not understand that Candace Dempsey speaks Italian? She herself translated the Italian article. 'Problems with deafness'/'Near-deaf' - could be interchangeable in idiomatic Italian. Might be no big deal at all. I don't really know, and neither do you or your imaginary friend. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ludicrous - sorry, I prefer plaid! And my imaginary friend is doing quite well, but they didn't say anything about this article. They keep mumbling about Struts, Ajax and other things I'm supposed to be doing. Ravensfire (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to go to bed now. I've spent all day on Wikipedia typing, reading and researching, and the sum total of my efforts is a one-sentence addition to an article which was rapidly deleted. Good night. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't view the information placed here [9] Others have claimed that the video talks about the mental health issues the witness had. Does it address her hearing?LedRush (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's a YouTube video of a presentation organized by FOA. It's about 2 hours long, so if they could at least say about when, that would help. As a source, I don't know. I'm leery because it is a presentation organized by a strident advocacy group (to say the least). Same concerns about notability of the claim, and really iffy about it as a source (not because of YouTube - it's on an official channel). Who makes the claim, basis, everything else said, put forth by an advocacy group, etc. If there's something that might be useful, I'd put it up on BLPN and maybe also RSN. Ravensfire (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit War

Please do not edit war over it. Technically it shouldn't be in there as it is disputed BLP material. But I'm not overly bothered myself; just stop the reverts please --Errant ^(chat!) 18:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the BLP issue raised was in relation to mental health. I just don't see a BLP issue around near-deafness. It is obviously of the utmost relevance, and it seems like an odd thing to worry about with respect to BLP guidelines.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want a 'layout of events' Berean Hunter, you can't put anything about Nara reporting hearing a scream in the section 'events surrounding the murder'. Because she didn't report hearing anything for months after the murder. And even then she didn't report it to police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyJoeBibby (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the witness did not come forward until months after the incident? If true, this whole sentence should be removed from the "events surrounding murder" section and moved to the "prosecuting and defense arguments" section.LedRush (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

(amused that this is posted in the wrong subsection) I would probably agree with you on that since it arises during the investigation and/or trial...but let's not move it just yet. We're having article stability problems. (re to Cody) In case you didn't understand why I moved it, it was a compromise to keep your newly revised edit in the article even though I share some of the same concerns voiced by others. I noted that you compromised earlier in removing the mental health bit. I was trying to accept your revised version by moving it. Your compromise was good...you're learning. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right about the location of this discussion...but Cody put his comments here, so I had to address them here.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating my ability to compromise, Berean Hunter. Although I felt the mental health issues were highly relevant to the credibility of the witness I removed the reference in the interests of consensus. Unfortunately my flexibility has not helped me. Somebody quickly deleted my reliably sourced statement questioning Nara C's hearing abilities. What am I supposed to do now? I can't put it back as i have been threatened by user TheMagnificentCleanKeeper that i will be blocked if i do. Any ideas? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't put it back in until there's a concensus on the talk page to add it and how to add the information. At a minimum, toss the Dempsey piece out as a reference. As others have pointed out, it looks like that is a self-published source (SPS), which you can't use to source information about living people unless the subject is the author. There's a discusssion going about the hearing thing, keep participating and wait out the result. Remember, there is no deadline! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I won't put it back. It's pretty clear now what's going on with this article. It's a shame, because i always trusted Wikipedia. Now i see how it really operates. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a cultural problem. Those most attracted to the job of administrator view their job as protecting the status-quo. For this article it's the prosecution view of the case. They view editors who dispute the prosecution as vandals. In some cases, summary indefinite blocks have been imposted for relatively minor transgressions. The specter of BLP is raised for just about any unfavorable comment towards the police, prosecutor or prosecution witnesses. Yet we don't see similar concern for smears aimed at the defendants. Or the recent incident where outright smears against the author of a book about the case showed up on this talk page. I love Wikipedia, and understand that we are expected to assume good faith. I seldom run into problem editing articles on other subjects. But on this article, it's clear that certain editors have no interest in an accurate article. They are simply pushing the prosecution's POV. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Preparing article for massive traffic on appeal

Because the evidence against Knox and Sollecito seems to be fading (very fast), there is likely to be enormous article traffic, as the appeals trial winds down. This intense reader interest is likely to occur, for either potential judgment of the jury:

• If both are acquitted, as logical from fading evidence, then the article should explain why.
• If both are convicted, despite news of fading evidence, the article should quote sources as to the crucial reasons why.

I recommend a sentence, near the top of the lede, which links to a section named "#Knox/Sollecito appeals trial" and that section should probably have 2 independent sources to back each phrase in the text. We need to get some photos approved. Let's start planning this now. -Wikid77 21:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain the photo approval process? PietroLegno (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The restrictions on images are extremely, ultra-complicated, so I think we will need to post a request at the WP:Village_pump for policies, WP:VPP to get advice about using Myspace images, mugshots, etc. I will submit the request and reply back, here, for the next step in contacting specialists about this. -Wikid77 08:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I would try it here. Good luck.TMCk (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We're months away from even a review of the DNA evidence, right?LedRush (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, No. The DNA review will be on May 21st, only 1 1/2 months away. It is even possible the appeal could be OVER at that time. The judge could order more testimony or tests though.Issymo (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

• During a re-trial in the U.S., the judge in the case can actually dismiss the case before the jury deliberates, such as for lack of proper evidence (per "rules of evidence"). Is that same concept followed in Italian criminal courts, or does an Italian jury always decide the verdict (just not a unanimous verdict)? -Wikid77 21:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Guede’s trial as Reliable Source?

I notice that the 12:35pm arrival of the postal police has found it’s way into the proposed timeline: “• 12:35 Two postal police arrive outside the flat (time claimed in Guede trial)[6][7][contested in court]” Of course we *know* they did not, from Massei ( please see my comments in Proposed detailed timeline 06:53, 30 March 2011), from Jimbo Wales comments in 'Possible change of source?' (“We say "Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Italian Post and Communications Police, came to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones near another house." This is, as far as I can tell, uncontroversial.), and from the devastating video presentation made by the defense in the Massei trial (Comments of RoseMontague (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2011 and :http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/postale.pdf ).

The Guede trial was a ‘fastrack trial’. To my understanding, this style of trial stipulates the arguments of the prosecution from the outset. The evidence is not on trial. Also, the arrival time of the postal police is irrelevant to Guede’s trial, and so may not have been subject to scrutiny. I question the use of the Guede trial as a Reliable Source. It may be useful in limited ways, such as to carry through a quote given in a hearing.

However, in the case of the proposed timeline, it is not sufficient. The line could be changed to read “12:35 Two postal police claimed to have arrived outside the flat[6][7][contested in court]”.Moodstream (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We would need a strong source for "contested in court" and the importance of this detail (although it may well have been, I'm not personally aware of a source that even says the time was contested). Obviously, we could put "contested in court" on pretty much every other sentence the whole article. 12.35 is the time not only in the Micheli report but in multiple other RS. No-one has so far provided a source that states any alternative time. --FormerIP (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The presentation in the postale pdf is very clear and Massei accepts an arrival around 1pm. What the presentation shows is the arrival of the postale police at 12:48. The prosecution stated the clock was 10 minutes fast so the arrival time would have been 12:38. The defence proved that the clock was actually 10 minutes slow, meaning the arrival time was in reality 12:58. The way they prove this is simple. The Carabanieri called Amanda's phone for directions and the time on the phone records is not contested. If the clock was actually fast as the prosecution claims they would have called Amanda for directions roughly 15 minutes after they arrived at Meredith's flat.RoseMontague (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The presentation on the Friends of Amanda website isn't a reliable source and it doesn't, in any case, show anything very clear. Massei does not "accept an arrival around 1 pm". He says "shortly before 1 pm" on on occasion and "shortly after 12.30" on two occasions. Obviously, that is consistent with 12:35, as reported in all reliable sources that have been presented. If you want to argue for a different time, you need a reliable source, not speculation. --FormerIP (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

While FormerIP is right that we need a RS, he is wrong regarding the time. It has been proven to him several times that the Massei Report accepts that the police arrived after the call.LedRush (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is absolutely clear, but in any case it is missing the point. Certain editors want to produce a timeline for inclusion in the article. Personally, I think this is misguided. However, if there is to be a timline, then it needs to use the specific times used in reliable sources, not calculations of what times must have been according to comparisons of different sources and information about what preceded what. That would be original research. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

On that point, we agree.LedRush (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: “I'm not personally aware of a source that even says the time was contested”. Murder in Italy p 62: “Neither officer saw Raffaele make a call. Later they would insist that they’d actually arrived at 12:35pm, shaving ten minutes off the previous claim, which only added to the confusion. This point would be debated and debated until at the end, the two accounts would differ only by five minutes.”’Moodstream (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox Movie Flunks Truthiness Test"20. That same day, Raffaele sneaks into a bedroom to call the carabinieri, after the postal cops arrive with Meredith’s stolen cell phones. Another whopper. As Rafafele’s defense team proved in court, he called 112 before the postals arrived."Moodstream (talk) 07:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The timeline on this point should not be in dispute. I have introduced a new section to demonstrate that there is a reliable source detailing defense claims on the time the Postal Police arrived. Any fair minded person looking at the long newspaper article on this subject, the actual defense presentation, the police logs, Raffaele's appeal, and what Massei says on the subject would conclude that it has been conclusively established that the Postal Police arrived just after Raffaele's call--just as Raffaele always maintained. This issue is the reddest of red herrings. PietroLegno (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, any fair minded Wikipedia editor who looked at the PDF on the Friends of Amanda site, the police logs, the sentencing report, Candace Dempsy's blog etc and used those to calculate a time that is different from what is contained in reliable sources would realise that this is original research.

The issue may be a bit if a red herring in that it is clearly not something that was considered important in the sentencing report, which doesn't even specify the exact time. There's a strong case, I think, for saying that something that is of interest to bloggers but wasn't of interest to the jury should just not be covered in the article at all. However, it is still the case that, if you want to include a time in the article, you're obliged to include the time that is contained in the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I feel that it is 100% clear that the police arrived after the call, but it is equally clear that it is original research to assign a time to their arrival that is not contained in reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Needs clarification

First point: In the first sentence of Murder of Meredith Kercher#The upstairs flat, it isn't clear to the reader why Guede's flat would be searched immediately since he wouldn't be implicated until much later. "The house at Via della Pergola 7 was investigated, along with the residence of Sollecito and Guede's former flat."

Was Guede's former flat adjacent to Kercher's flat? If so, the statement should be amended to reflect this. Something like, "Kercher's flat and the adjacent flats at Via della Pergola 7 (one of which had been previously occupied by Guede) were all investigated as well as Sollecito's residence ".

Second point: In the introduction of Guede, it states that he didn't have any criminal record at the time of the murder...but later, in the section on Guede's arrest, the police are able to match his DNA. There needs to be some explanation as to how the police happened to have his DNA at this point as it seems inconsistent. I believe this point was raised by DreamGuy before but was never addressed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Point one is strange as the citation doesn't match at all.TMCk (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Point two's reason is as far as I remember that he was an asylum seeker and had his fingerprints taken but couldn't find the source, at least yet.TMCk (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Self-addressing point 2; the phrase that he had no criminal record was completely false and I've updated the section to reflect that he was a drug dealer and petty criminal well-known to police by the time of the murder. The previous source (now removed) was explaining why his sentence was cut in half...when the author wrote "...lack of criminal record were taken into account", he meant a lack of a serious criminal record.

Now, it is understandable why the police would have Guede's prints & DNA.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read that he did not have a criminal record many times, and I've also read that he was well known to police. I think that both pieces of info should stay in there until we get a source that clarifies if the two sources are in conflict (I don't think they must be, but they certain could be.)LedRush (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already seen numerous reliable sources speaking of his criminal record and logically it follows this is why they would have his prints & DNA. Both pieces do not make sense to stay...we shouldn't confuse the reader. A search for Guede's mugshots reveal earlier pics than the mugshot when he was arrested for Kercher's murder.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, bring them. His fingerprints (not his DNA) were on record because of his immigration status. --FormerIP (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph states "He became a suspect in the murder two weeks after Miss Kercher's body was found, when DNA tests on a bloody fingerprint and on samples taken from the body were found to match samples which police already had on file following his earlier arrests."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

According to these sources, he was a drug dealer and petty criminal:

• The Daily Telegraph
• Another article from same
• ITN
• Reuters
• The Independent
• The London Times
• BBC
• TruTV
• Metro
• Croydon Guardian

That is a compelling argument that he was a minor criminal.

Don't people in Italy have access to people's criminal record? In the U.S. we do.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

we all agree that he was a small time drug dealer/petty criminal. However, we don't have any sources that say he was previously arrested, and we have several that say he hasn't been arrested. The current formulation in the article makes sense and should remain until reliable sources clarify the situation.LedRush (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I should say above that the sources say he had no criminal record. Perhaps he was arrested and then released.LedRush (talk) 03:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Defense Case: Reliable Source for Postal Police Arrival

There is and always has been a reliable source for the defense claims that Raffaele actually made his call to the Carabinieri BEFORE the Postal Police arrived. His call was at 12:57. Careful analysis of the CCTV images revealed that the Postal Police arrived at the scene at 12:58 at the EARLIEST. This showed that Raffaele told the truth on this point. This was accepted at one point in the history of the article but then a number of users were summarily banned and the defense claim here was excised as part of an effort to introduce a non-neutral point of view.

Here is the key passage, in Italian first followed by a rough Google translation:

Ancora ombre e sospetti su Raffaele: l'arrivo della Polizia Postale Raffaele dichiara di aver gia allertato con due telefonate i Carabinieri prima dell'arrivo della Postale (ore 12,51 e ore 12,53 come si evince dai suoi tabulati telefonici). L'Accusa da del bugiardo a Raffaele poiche, su dichiarazione degli stessi agenti, la Postale sarebbe arrivata sul posto alle 12,25 quindi prima della telefonata di Raffaele ai Carabinieri. Si tratta di un'affermazione per nulla veritiera alla luce de tutte le altre prove ricavate da una attenta analisi delle immagini di una video-camera di sorveglianza del parcheggio Sant'Antonio situata di fronte all'ingresso della casa di Meredith. In base alle immagini la Punto nera della Polizia Postale sarebbe arrivata nei pressi della casa alle ore 12,38; e lo stesso Pubblico Ministero a mostrare in udienza una foto con orario (ore 12,38) che riprenderebbe l'arrivo dell'auto. Ma l'autovettura prosegue, non avendo gli agenti indivuato il civico 7, come da loro stessi dichiarato in udienza. 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: algi 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. Ecco svelato l'arcano grazie a controlli incrociati sull'arrivo dei Carabinieri, anch'esso ripreso dalle telecamere Sono proprio le telefonate dei Carabinieri (confermate dai tabulati) ed il loro arrivo la dimostrazione dell'ulteriore "svista" della Procura e della sincerita di Raffaele.

Even shadows and suspicions Raffaele: the arrival of the Postal Police Raffaele says he had already alerted the Carabinieri with two phone calls before the Post (at 12.51 and 12.53 hours as evidenced by his phone records). The Prosecutor Raffaele be a liar because, upon declaration of the same agents, the Post would arrive at 12.25 and then at the first call of the Carabinieri Raffaele. This viewpoint is not at all true in light of all other evidence from a careful analysis of images of a video-camera surveillance Anthony parking located in front of the house of Meredith. According to the images of Black Point Postal Police would come near the house at 12.38, and the prosecutor at the hearing to show a picture with time (12.38 hours) which repeats the arrival of the car. But the car continues failing agents indivuato the number 7, as they themselves said at the hearing. Their actual arrival is taken by the camera at 12.48, when are going to cross on foot the gate of the house. Why two different versions of time? Simple: regulated and agents of the Post, not only to them, it is reported that the watch of television cameras recorded the wrong time: 10 minutes would go forward. Only during the ongoing process of Raffaele defense can prove unequivocally that watch that record, a wrong time, but more than 10 minutes back and forward, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not subtracting 10 minutes: the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually not before 12.58 hours. That's the mystery revealed through cross-checks on the arrival of the Carabinieri, also recorded by the cameras are just calls Carabinieri (confirmed by printouts) and the arrival of further demonstration "oversight" of the prosecutor and the sincerity of Raffaele.

I retrieved the above from the article history. The link is here:

http://issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009

The link still works but it appears that, unlike last August, you now have to register with the publisher to access the full article. I was afraid to do this, or otherwise obtain a copy of the article, for fear someone would accuse me of violating some obscure rule.

Please note as well that:

1) The 100+ slide defense PowerPoint presentation on this issue is available 2) Massei concedes on at least two occasions that the Postal Police arrived at 1:00 PM 3) The matter is also a point of emphasis in Raffaele’s appeal. 4) The official police log supported the later arrival time (this was in the article at one point too.

Bottom line: No NEUTRAL article would contend for even a second that the defense did not offer a vigorous and highly effective rebuttal of the prosecution case on this issue. Indeed, a judicious researcher, weighing all the evidence, might well conclude that this was complete prosecutorial red herring.

I would only add that this matter highlights one of the chief problems with sources. The coverage of the trial by large segments of the press was atrocious. Many reporters did not even stick around for the defense presentation. PietroLegno (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We would need a source for the assertion that "the defense did ... offer a vigorous and highly effective rebuttal of the prosecution case on this issue". If that can be found, then fine. You're opinion that they must have because of a powerpoint presentation etc is original research.

La piazza di Giovinazzo is almost certainly not a reliable source because it is a tiny circulation freesheet. It also serves Sollecito's home town and he used to write a column for it (see page 9 [10]), so it cannot be expected to be neutral.

However, even if we pretend it is reliable, it doesn't actually say that this argument was offered in court, whether it was successful or what the details of the argument may have been. What it says is "Only during the Raffaele's ongoing trial can the defence prove unequivocally that clock was wrong, but it was 10 minutes slow, not fast, and so that time should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and not by subtracting 10 minutes". All this is is the assertion of a tiny freesheet connect to the defendant. It doesn't tell us anything we can include in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Can some of these issues start being actually discussed? Thus giving the true respect for Meredith. I am just curious, why each thing is instantly a battle. This ia representation of Wiki, I accept the rules and those things, but each day it seems a new attack. God rest your soul Dear Meredith. This will get handled, I hope. --Truth Mom (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As Jimbo Wales reminded us the idea is to get things right and he reproved another editors for arbitrarily dismissing a source as you have done here. We should not be inventing reasons to keep good sources out. The newspaper in question is reliable. It does not become unreliable just because it is friendly to Raffaele anymore than certain British publications become unreliable because they are frequently unfriendly. This is a major article on this subject--maybe a dozen pages and very detailed. This newspaper did not invent all of this out of whole cloth. They reported accurately what was actually said in court. This was the whole point of the article. It filled an important gap because the coverage by large papers on this subject was often unspeakably bad. Further, we have other reliable sources of information. The actual PowerPoint used by the defense is available online. So is Raffaele's appeal. The official police log, as discussed by Candace Dempsey, is further evidence that the police must have arrived much later than they said. On pages 25 and 27 of the Massei report he indicates that they arrived at 1:00 PM. Again, the bottom line is this: no NEUTRAL article would pretend for a second that this point was uncontested. We had the language on this in pretty good shape at one point and it was mercifully brief.PietroLegno (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, it would not be shocking to find that Raffaele wrote for his home town paper, but can you supply a reliable source for your assertion that he did? PietroLegno (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You just ran full speed against it.TMCk (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue that describes the evidence used to prove the Postal Police arrived after the 112 call also included an article where Raffaele tells his side of the story. If we use that to declare a source unreliable, the same rule would preclude using any publication that published an interview with the prosecutor as being hopelessly biased for the prosecution. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, please find at least 2, provably totally independent reliable sources, which state how that webpage is not a reliable source (webpage: issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009 ). Wikipedia does not allow original-research arguments, such as, "One suspect might have written for the newspaper, so everything it publishes is a lie" (no way). That would be a severe violation of WP:NOR.
  Anyway, in general, run Google Search for a key phrase to confirm a source contains the text, even if the original webpage requires an access license. For example, search for: "la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58". That search will confirm that the source is, in fact, the website as noted. -Wikid77 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Pietro. If what you were saying were contained in reliable secondary sources then that would be one thing. The fact that you are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel by using a cocktail of unreliable sources, suppositions and Google Translate, for me, means that what you are supposing is either wrong or simply unimportant. Particularly since even your unreliable sources don't directly say what you want them to.

La piazza di Giovinazzo obviously isn't a reliable source. It a tiny publication, Sollecito wrote for it (here's the link again - see page 9 [11]) and the editors trying to shoehorn it into the article don't even understand the language it is written in (or else they would realise that it doesn't actually say what they would like to believe it does). Those are not "arbitrary" objections. --FormerIP (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikid77, the onus is always on those wanting to add information from a source that it is reliable. It's not up to someone challenging the source to prove that it's unreliable, but they should say why they are concerned. It's up to the editors adding the information to show how that source meets the requirements of WP:RS. Using Google Translate as the sole source of translated information is problematic at best, especially given this is a BLP article. You might want to see if an English source has commented on the information. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Including false information that smears the defendants is also a violation of the rules on BLP. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, who defines if information is true or false? Verifiable, reliable sources. And that's it. If something is sourced, and you KNOW it's wrong, but can't find a source to back up your belief, it needs to stay in the article. If sources disagree about something, then note that disagreement (just like is done many times in this article). Smearing isn't good, but if it's notable and reliably sourced, then it should stay in the article. See any article about fraudsters - I suspect most of them would argue that their name is being smeared, but if that's how the sources describe them, go with it. If the label is controverial but notable, mention both.

Ultimately, it's all about the source. Ravensfire (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We don’t want to report information that is untrue, even if reliable sources once reported it. And, we don’t want to reach our own conclusions and report them as fact, or report a conclusion made by someone else as fact, even if the conclusion is obvious. Here, the notion that the postal police arrived before Sollecito called the Carabinieri is certainly untrue, and yet also a conclusion.

Regardless of how well founded, documented and reasonable, it will always be a conclusion as long as the postal police claim they arrived at 12:35. How do you counter a dubious claim without reporting a conclusion?

Candace Dempsey, in her book, which is a RS, says on p 62: “Neither officer saw Raffaele make a call. Later they would insist that they’d actually arrived at 12:35pm, shaving ten minutes off the previous claim, which only added to the confusion. This point would be debated and debated until at the end, the two accounts would differ only by five minutes.”

So, it's RS to report the claimed arrival time, and the fact that it was debated in court. The question I have is why can’t we use the Massei sentencing document as a reporter to give us the elements of that debate, and a report of the conclusion that the court reached? Moodstream (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to reiterate: the source I quoted above is eminently reliable and has been totally mis-characterized; it a long, detailed report describing the argument Raffaele's lawyer Giulia Buongiorno made in court; 2) The presentation she made is also available online; 3) The officer who claimed he had arrived earlier is a very dubious witness in as much as he was directly contradicted on other key points by a reliable, neutral witness; 4)the police log shows that the officers were dispatched after they claim to have arrived; Massei never says the police were wrong in so many words--he just quietly accepts the defense arrival time on page 25 and again on page 27; Raffaele's notes that Massei endorses the defense view and uses it as a platform to argue other issues. I believe Wikipedia would be amply justified in concluding that Raffaele called the Carabinieri just before the Postal Police arrived. To pretend that the defense had not put up a powerful counter argument would be outrageous. One of the reasons this article was in such poor shape until recently is that it was locked in a time warp. Earlier, flawed accounts were privileged and new information was excluded. That is what happened here. PietroLegno (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that there is a later, perfect account which ought to be included. That's almost good enough, but what's lacking is a reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Translating Italian sources

Sources in Italian language can be partially translated using Google Translate. Most of the words are translated, but unfortunately, many prepositions or the word "non" (for "not") are often omitted which causes awkward, misleading phrases. In those cases, extract just 1 phrase from the Italian version, and re-translate the partial phrase separately, perhaps even translating 1 word at a time, then adjust the original translation to correct for the partial phrase.

Note that the name "Sollecito" is also the Italian word "sollecito" which means a "momento" (reminder) or a "request" (an urge). So, in sentences containing the name "Sollecito" (or other names) prefix with "x" (or such) as "xSollecito" to retain the name in the translated form.

Example: Consider the following phrase as typically translated by Google Translate:

• Italian:  "Su Sollecito, 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."

• English: "Urge on, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and subtracting 10 minutes and the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually no earlier than 12.58".

However, by separately translating the word "non" as meaning "not" and prefixing the name (as spelled "xSollecito") then the translation becomes:

• Corrected: About xSollecito, then these times should be corrected by adding at least 10 minutes and NOT subtracting 10 minutes: the Postal Police arrived on the spot actually no earlier than 12.58".

In general, search the original Italian text for the word "non" (not) and be sure that the English translation also indicates the meaning as "not" for the equivalent text. Also, try to use other translation websites, such as a dictionary-lookup website. -Wikid77 12:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't trust a machine translation on an article about an ongoing murder trial. Use English sources would be the easiest solution. There seem to be plenty of them. --John (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Use editors on the WP:Translators available page. Google translate is not perfect, and this is a BLP. The urge to get any and all material needs to be tempered with getting it right the first time. On a non-BLP article, I wouldn't really care. As I said above, the odds are that if the material is truly notable and useful, it will be translated and/or commented on by an English source. Using material from an RS that comments on information in another language is acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Asking editors at WP:Translators available, to help with Italian wording, is a good idea, or if someone has found a source in English then that would be good, as well. Also, consider asking other editors here to revise the translation. Many of us speak other languages and would help revise a partial translation. -Wikid77 05:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Improving house concept diagram

File:Kercher Knox house Perugia concept.gif

Improved variation for concept diagram of upstairs flat.

Several editors have commented that the prior concept diagram, of the upstairs flat, needs improvement. As a result, I have created a variation (see image at right), by copying and altering the February 2010 diagram, while replacing the green bathroom fixtures (with architectural style drawings) and moving the clothes dryer to match the photos. To help gain consensus with other editors, it is important to show that changes are being made.

Originally, the diagram had been kept extremely basic (to nearly stick-figure level) to avoid claims of copyvio, where people might insist on a world-wide image hunt to find who "really" created a more intricate diagram. However, now that the original crude diagram has been accepted as new, I think it is safe to create this variation which can have more sophisticated detail, and refer to the old diagram as the early version which is wikilinked to numerous talk-page discussions. Meanwhile, this new variation can be improved to include a greater range of graphic styles.

We already discussed that the diagram cannot have true, reduced-to-scale dimensions, due to the requirement to source each wall-segment length (and furniture measurements) to reliable sources. Also, the wording below the diagram is needed (per policy WP:OI) to avoid any perceptions of misleading the readers about the actual size of the rooms. However, we can make other changes. What other major improvements which should be discussed? -Wikid77 05:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. It is a wonderful aid to the article. I am wondering if we can find reliably sourced wall and furniture measurements.PietroLegno (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, but this isn't really any better. That's an interesting interpretation of WP:OI. I noticed it also has "Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion." I think the encyclopedic value of this diagram is materially affected by the manipulations. Rather than improving it, we should probably delete it. We certainly can't use it. Sorry. --John (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Your "thinking" it doesn't make it so and a subjective interpretation of very general language is never impressive. In my opinion the diagram materially improves the encyclopedia. I am sure this is not the only wikipedia article where a highly useful diagram like this has been included. Be not daunted Wikid77. PietroLegno (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you describe the added value you believe it would lend to the article? Maybe you can help me understand why you want to include something like that. I don't like the quality of the diagram, I dislike that it uses the wrong words (we don't talk about a "map" of a house but of a "plan"), I dislike the disclaimers (which are confusing and seem to contradict each other), and I dislike the idea of posting a very obviously user-generated picture like this on so controversial an article. See if you can convince me why we need a house plan at all on this article. --John (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I support the addition of a floorplan. It's of obvious value in visualizing the crimescene and the relationship between locations within the flat. I cannot believe that anyone could argue, with a straight face, that an illustration has no value. That being said, perhaps the floorplan could be reduced to a simple, clean line drawing.. very minimalist... and user:John's concerns regarding clear labeling and wording could be accommodated. Admin:John, with respect, rather than continued and changing criticism of the diagram, why dont we approach this backward and see if we can reach consensus. What WOULD be acceptable to you in the form of a floorplan? Please let us all know your 'must haves'. No disrespect intended but I have to say, arbitrary complaining about something as simple and common as a floorplan illustration comes off more like obstructionism and foot dragging rather than proper WP: cooperation. Regards, Tjholme (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Police Interviews

The paragraph about Amanda’s written note recanting the “confession” stating that “She ‘stood by’ her accusation of Lumumba” is taken out of context and should include her entire statement from the written note in order to be WP:NPOV.

"I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." Turningpointe (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Short full protection

I took the liberty to put a short (2 days) full protection on the article, par request by both The Magnificent Clean-keeper and ErrantX. I agree with ErrantX's concern that the article is slowly moving towards an edit war, so to prevent this i am placing a short timeout to allow for this to be settled on the talk page, instead of trough reverts. Of course any admin may remove the protection once this has been settled - do please restore the semi protection i had to remove. Please do so as well in case the two days just expire. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Excirial --Errant ^(chat!) 20:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New Witness Testimony in Appeal

Just so I don't forget while the article is locked, the following article talks about the new witnesses the defense called for testimony [12]LedRush (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, another article that talks about new witness testimony, including that the homeless witness' testimony was contradicted by the six other witnesses, who "established" that there were no discos open or buses running the night he claims to have seen the Knox and Sollecito. It also established that the homeless witness has been a prosecution witness in two other murder cases. [13] LedRush (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)