Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

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 ([1] 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 ([2]) - 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)

FormerIP would you please answer my question.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tjholme, we have a statement in the article that says “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” This would lead one to believe that the footprints were of blood. As we can see from Massei’s report this is not true. I think we should include the entire paragraph from Massei’s report (posted above) verbatim to clear up this misleading statement.--Truth Mom (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP you said " defence witness said that the results were "not easy to interpret", partly because the test used is only 50% reliable."

Is this what you was referring to? I found this on page 258 of Massei's report: "She added that, in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by Luminol give about even results: 50% negative, 50% positive,”

Also I found this on page 256 of Massei's report: "...During the hearing, Dr. Sarah Gino also explained that from reading the SAL schedules, information emerged which indicated the personnel who performed the analyses, the file number, the bio code, and the identification numbers of the items being analysed. She added, however, that "there is missing information or rather, information which is not easy to interpret".

Is this the information you found in Massei’s report that you mentioned in your comment? If not where did you find the information? --Truth Mom (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please help me make this edit because I don't know how? --Truth Mom (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is currently locked, so I think only an Admin could make an edit. What precisely do you want to add? I would write it clearly here (meaning, the actual proposed text, with citations) and then ask others to add it.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

well, I don’t know what is possible to include in the article. The article currently contains the following statement, “Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.” The statement indicates Amanda and Raffaele’s bloody footprints were found at the crime scene. This is very incriminating. From Massei's report we know that test were performed on the so called bloody footprints and were negative for blood and when the authorities were ask in court if the test for blood had been performed they gave false testimony". If we paraphrase what the Massei report says, then we are doing original research, so I guess we must include the entire paragraph from Massei's report following the statement that is currently in the article. How is it possible to approach reality under these conditions? Apparently The media didn’t think the authorities lying in court is significant because they did not report it. Also the blood test on the footprints didn’t get much attention if any, but Amanda’s panties got plenty of coverage. I just doesn't make sense. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Truth Mom, I agree! Something needs to be done about this!Turningpointe (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the following edit " Luminol revealed footprints in the flat, which the prosecution argued were compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito.[50]:373[56] . The authorities testified in court that test for blood had not been performed and presented police crime lab reports that did not mention the test. Later the defense testified that the authorities crime lab records revealed the test in question had been performed by the crime lab, and the results were negative for the presents of blood for all traces, however the judge assumed the blue blurs revealed with Luminol was from Amanda's bloody feet regardless of the scientific test results [50] --Truth Mom (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events? --FormerIP (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

yes--Truth Mom (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Please would you be so kind as to provide the relevant quotes from the source that support this version of events. --FormerIP (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FormeIP the information you ask for is already posted in this topic / thread, and you said the court accepted the substance is blood (above)although the test indicated it wasn't so you know where this info is located in massei's report, am I correct? --Truth Mom (talk) 15:35, 14 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)

• Support 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)

Maybe we are making progress. What I had particular problems with was the suggestion that the floorplan involved some egregious violation of Wikipedia rules. This seems silly to me. This is mainly a dispute about aesthetics and what makes a readable article. All of the floor plans that have been published were based on the diagrams in the case file. I respectfully suggest that you have been told a number of times why the inclusion of the floorplan is useful: it helps a reader better understand the narrative. It is neutral on the question of guilt or innocence but it has the signal virtue of adding to the intelligibility of the article. I personally find the introduction of visual elements to break up text to be a useful strategy in any publication. My guess is that if I went through the Britannica or the Americana I would find lots of visual elements. As user Tjholme points out, your other objections can be ironed out. PietroLegno (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support adding the drawing as it does aid the reader in understanding enough about the crime scene. It may or may not need to be tweaked but the idea of having one is good and the opposition has not brought forth a compelling argument founded in policy to exclude it. Indeed, the efforts should be applauded. Our American Civil War battles have user-generated maps and those battles are more controversial than this trial will ever be. Commons has a category called Crime scenes and it has a user-generated floorplan in it for a murder...File:Sogen Kato Room.jpg.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the current proposal. With no offense meant to the author, it is not of sufficient quality to meet our needs, assuming there is a consensus that we should have a plan, something I am still uneasy about but will go with the flow on. If we are to have one, let us have one that is as true to the real dimensions in the sources as possible, and without all the disclaimers which mar this one. I am sure someone can make a better one; maybe I will even do so. But this one, with the stated inaccuracies, will not do. --John (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I've already given my reasons more than once. The diagram adds value to the article. Issymo (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I have just read this entire thread about the floorplan. As a Wikipedia novice I think it is an appalling disgrace. It is clear that there are editors who will use every possible filibuster activity to prevent any change to the page at all. How adding a diagram showing the flat layout and the relationship of one room to another, can be anything other than helpful to a neutral reader, is quite beyond me. Editors who are opposing this are displaying bad faith on a breathtaking scale and this must be obvious to everyone who reads the thread. It is no surprise that some previous editors have been blocked in the past when they have overreacted after having been driven to distraction by these tactics. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility as an information resource, editing in good faith must be restored and those who are responsible for Wikipedia must act. I had naively thought that the intervention of Jimbo Wales in person would cause some of these editors to pause and change their behaviour, but while some have withdrawn, many of the current crop have responded with renewed energy and are as disruptive as ever. It is as though they get a perverse delight in winning an argument at all costs and have absolutely no interest in working towards a consensus to provide an informative, comprehensive and comprehendable article for the neutral reader. This must raise questions about the motives of these people. NigelPScott (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for not having a floor plan. Though I would like to see some tweaks to the currently proposed images:

• • The text above and below the images should be black and in smaller/cleaner font
  • The text labels should probably be a little smaller (and not bolded) as well
  • At the proposed size the image displays a little blurry, mostly because it is a Gif. PNG format of the agreed size (better yet a SVG, but that might be a bit of a stretch) would be nice to have.

If those tweaks were made (I am quite happy to make them myself if there is agreement and Wikid77 is not able to make them) then I see not problem with inclusion. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think the floorplan does contribute to the article. I don't have problems with the current form but if it can be improved to satisfy the concerns of others I am fine with it.PietroLegno (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think it is an asset to the viewer and should go in. I also agree the current form is fine, if the minor changes need to be made that is also fine. lets get it in there and move on. --Truth Mom (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Because there are no OR or copyright violation issues, and because it clearly adds to the article in a NPOV manner. If people want the plan improved, those changes can be made on the fly. Let's not make perfect the enemy of the very good to the detriment of the readers.LedRush (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Poor diagram per ErrantX's proposed changes. Make them, rotate the diagram so the main entrance is at the bottom, and that's fine. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and draw it to scale, as opposed to narrowed for no good reason. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Let's get the diagram back into the article immediately since it is necessary for understanding the case. We can worry about trivial concerns about fonts etc later. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment For those of us who are invested in maintaining the quality of this resource, concerns about the quality of the graphic are not trivial. If we use a diagram, it must be well-drawn, sourced, and free of distracting text. The current proposal does not meet these criteria. --John (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I find it very odd that the text of this article needs so much attention, and there is this continual feuding over text upon a diagram placed for a simple visual concept. I actually have visual issues, and I can see it clearly. --Truth Mom (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral - perhaps still leaning towards oppose. Although I agree that the image is not the biggest problem facing this article, the absence of scale means that I feel unable to offer true support. The attribution could also be much improved. Since the image serves to educate the reader about the interior of the apartment (i.e. it is not simple illustration of article text), the sourcing should be robust - currently, the firmest attribution is to the Friends of Amanda website. Nevertheless, I would not object to re-insertion pending assured changes (in particular, I would urge that ErrantX's recommendations are implemented). SuperMarioMan 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Serves little purpose other than to advance a particular point of view. Quality and accuracy are, at best, suspect. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  Please explain HOW the diagram advances a particular POV or remove your assertion. Issymo (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - A floor diagram is useful when you are playing Cluedo, but this article should be moving away from that approach. --FormerIP (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support I agree that the diagram should be included. It is helpful to the reader to understand the events being outlined in the article. Turningpointe (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Copied Turningpointe's vote to this section of the discussion as it was in the wrong place. Hope that's OK. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. How do we know where the frig (fridge) was located, or if the flat even had one? Not mentioned in the article, or the reference supporting the description of flat and contents. Neither is the couch. OR? Moriori (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an official police diagram that shows where everything is located - http://friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/fingerprint_map_small.jpg Issymo (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. There are no sources given that indicate where the frig the fridge was, or whether the bidet was to the right or left of the toilet basin. It just seems to be what one person 'conceives' the layout of the flat to be, (but compressed horizontally, for no good reason) pablo 17:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Totally unsourced, for one. For another it is a 'conceptual diagram' which has been 'conceived' by someone with a very strong point of view on this article, which seems to further indicate that its accuracy is at best limited. pablo 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another editor commenting on the diagram's POV, please explain how the diagram pushes a POV.Issymo (talk)

Okay, I will try and simplify it for you. One person has created this diagram. There are no sources. Therefore there is no way of verifying the accuracy of the diagram. Therefore the diagram is worthless. Do let me know if you are still struggling with this. pablo 05:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It is really disappointing that when a consensus is reached, and a change is made, some editors then decide to go back and start arguing about the issue all over again. It is hard to see this as anything other than a deliberate attempt to halt any change to the article, as if there was once a perfect entry that they are trying to defend. The diagram is accepted as a representational layout of the flat. This helps the reader to get an idea of where everything is in relation to everything else. This must be useful, regardless of one's view on the case itself. To say "it is not accurate so it must be worthless" is bad tempered and does not show good faith. We are not trying to measure rooms before we buy carpets, so we do not need precise details, just to know where the rooms are in relation to each other and where the doors are. Is that so hard to understand? NigelPScott (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral I dont like the idea of putting under scrutiny the house where the murder took place. It seems to me an attempt to do original research. BTW it seems to me a NPOV element, thus I dont side with any part. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Call to close

• Comment 8 in favour of reinstating the diagram immediately, 2 against. Carried. Reinstate the diagram please. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. It hasn't been 24 hours from the start of this consensus yet. We allow time for other involved editors to see and comment on this. An uninvolved admin will tally and close when the time is right.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how you can claim a consensus to reinsert the material when addressing the concerns of those of us opposed to the current diagram are so easily assuaged. Why not let ErrantX clean up the picture so it meets our standards of quality? Hipocrite (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]First of all, WP works by consensus, not voting (though there is an obvious relationship between the two). Numbers of votes don't matter (supposedly), only the quality of the arguments. Also, the majority of the voting has been done in the last 12 hours. Let's see if we can't pump out one more version of the floor plan that addresses the concerns. It shouldn't take long. Having said that, it seems to me that if the only concerns are cosmetic, I don't see the problem with adding the diagram and changing it per legitimate aesthetic concerns. The article is worse without it than with it, regardless of font size and color. LedRush (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(re Hipocrite) If you read my support statement above, you will see that I'm supporting having a map in the article with no objections for tweaking/cleaning/making a new map. The map shown in the article may change but I'm supporting the idea of getting one in. I believe we can use the current one until it is superseded (just like revisions of our articles). It is a start. It doesn't need to be perfect and we can work on it. This is a means of moving forward.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me suggest that we can't use the current one until it is superseded, because the current one is not to scale, and it does not rise to the standards of professionalism we insist on having in our articles. A means of moving forward would be to correct the diagram. Hipocrite (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, in Wikipedia, we have humble beginnings for articles from barely sourced stubs to problematic starts and so on. The idea that it must be perfect and fully professional is incorrect. None of our featured articles started out having nearly the level that they would eventually achieve. This consensus is striving at getting the map in so that we get beyond that hurdle and then the map can be improved. If someone gets a new one complete before this consensus closes - great..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a long distance between "fully professional" and "minimally competent." I am suggesting the second, not the first. To scale, and not looking like an MSPaint drawing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Define 'consensus' in terms which indicate 80% of people being in favour of something is not a consensus, thank you. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus means that the entire body agrees. In fact, in functioning consensus discussions, consensus means that everyone either agrees with the decision or stands aside (see Consensus decision-making) - "Any group member may "block" a proposal.") We can get full agreement if you'd let the image get fixed before you rush it into the article. That is a proposal that I said I was willing to accept in an attempt to consent to a compromise, as opposed to merely acceding to the wishes of your off-wiki organized pressure group the new, single-purpose, editors. Hipocrite (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Edited Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out to Cody that Wikipedia has no deadlines - as Berean Hunter has urged, please allow more time. SuperMarioMan 15:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're suggesting i am part of what you define as an 'off-wiki organized pressure group'? Given that that statement is a blatant lie, I can only interpret it as a personal attack. Could someone please let me know where to complain about this user, thanks in advance. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You can complain about me to WP:WQA or WP:ANI. Are you sure you're not participating in off-wiki discussions regarding this article? Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Struck accusation Hipocrite (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I'll be putting a complaint in for that lying personal attack as soon as i work out how to effectively do that. There's a lot to learn here! Thanks again! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

@Hipocrite. Sir, if you’re alleging that one or more of us is a sock/meatpuppet or engaged in off-site coordination then say so plainly, name names and present your evidence. Slurring your fellow editors with that broad suggestion might well be seen as an attack of sorts. Please make your case by strength of your argument not by attacking others. Common wisdom states that “once you’ve said ‘Nazi’, you’ve lost the argument”. In WP I’d restate that as “Once you’ve said ‘sock’ or ‘SPA’ you’ve lost the argument”. 155.70.23.45 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)155.70.23.45 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me (above) Tjholme (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement that the diagram as it stands, is "productive", as well if those minor things can be addressed in a short amount of time, that is also validated by me. I am not in agreement to drag this thing on and on, nor to be thought of being in any sort of group, simply because i would like to see fair productivity upon this subject. Would you really like me to point at I have from the start the circus of events that has taken place in this? My point as well, many have made mention of professional, well then lets show it by all. I hardly think Dear Meredith is concerned with an article concerning her horrific death, to be argument over font on a diagram. let us not forget WHO this whole thing is concern of.--Truth Mom (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been told that 'consensus' requires every user in the group to be in agreement for a decision to be made. Could somebody tell me whether SuperMarioMan had 'consensus' for removing the diagram in the first place, thanks in advance. I'm know I'm slow at learning all these rules! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The correct document is WP:CONSENSUS...and no, it doesn't have to have everyone in agreement. I would suggest that you simply wait. Questioning about SuperMarioMan's removal is not helping here. We need to get the editing environment moving towards collegiality. Specific discussion on improving the already existing drawing would be productive; complaints & questioning motives are counterproductive.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• support I agree that the diagram should be included. It is helpful to the reader to understand the events being outlined in the article. Turningpointe (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

(@Turningpointe) Your support does not belong in this subsection. It belongs in the thread above this one. This subthread is discussing a call to close.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

mostly off topic discussion which descended into sniping and argument. Discuss the image, be polite. Please --Errant (chat!) 17:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was just wondering if someone could explain to me how the concept of 'consensus' works here given that it would appear it's a somewhat flexible concept depending on the user. I'm sorry if you don't like people questioning double standards. I just want an explanation of why the concept of 'consensus' as it has been explained to me does not apply to the action of SuperMarioMan's which caused this topic to exist in the first place. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Reading our policy on it might be a good place to start. --John (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Could you refer me directly to the section which states that a consensus requires the approval of all parties, not just a majority, thanks in advance. Could you also refer me to the section stating that an editor is entitled to make radical edits to a controversial article in spite of the objections of other editors, thanks in advance. There sure is a lot to learn here! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Cody, there is nothing more to be explained - instead, please calmly read through the responses of Berean Hunter and others. I removed the image from the article four days ago - why am I receiving all this condemnation days later? It was not the first revert on the subject of the image, nor the last. These attempts to catch me out are a fruitless and unproductive endeavour - could you please heed Berean Hunter's advice and drop it? Thank you. SuperMarioMan 16:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I have so far received no satisfactory explanation as to why the rules on consensus which have been explained to me do not apply to you. But thank you very much for your input. It's a nice technique of yours the way you try to hide behind perceived authority figures such as Berean Hunter by dragging them into your evasive statements. Well done! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that. You still haven't got round to looking at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I trust? Also, what is so objectionable about citing what Berean Hunter (and not to mention quite a few others) have said when it makes perfect sense? You would do well to listen to their recommendations and really take them to heart. I'm sorry, but this persistent sarcasm and aggression does little to advance your argument and much to harm it. SuperMarioMan 17:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your patronising tone and veiled threats directed towards me. I would normally see your sycophancy towards perceived authority figures as a nauseating display of self-abasement in order to align yourself with the 'authorities', but in this case I'll make an exception and assume good faith. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC) You haven't assume good faith from your very first post on using this account [3] and nothing has changed to date.TMCk (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry if you're offended by my exercising the right to free speech. I can imagine that must be difficult to deal with for someone like yourself, TCMK. But keep on Wiki lawyering. Maybe you'll be able to get me banned! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I sure don't have a problem with free speech at the right place.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I would argue that the First Amendment does in fact apply on Wikipedia. I saw nothing convincing on the page you cited to say that it doesn't. How could the First Amendment not apply? The Constitution overrides any other arrangements. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Uh, oh, not this perennial discussion! The right to free speech applies to government censorship. The right to participation or expression on a privately owned website is not covered :) --Errant (chat!) 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Errant is correct. These are private servers and you agreed to abide by the terms of usage. Please read WP:FREE. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I'm still not seeing anything which states that the US Constitution and its Amendments do not apply within the United States of America. I must be missing it. Not to worry! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC) The US constitution's position on free speech applies only to government actors. For example, I have the right to swear however much I want. But if I go to a movie theater and do it, they are completely within their rights as private citizens to kick me out. The same concept is true here. This doesn't even address the idea of WP being governed by US law.LedRush (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC) Consensus is a decision that takes account of all the legitimate concerns raised. All editors are expected to make a good-faith effort to reach a consensus aligned with Wikipedia's principles. Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes. Maybe the hardest thing to understand is that it is not a vote. Arguments count, not numbers. You'll pick it up if you stick around long enough. --John (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC) All interested parties have by now voiced their opinion. Some more than once. We’re simply repeating ourselves. It’s obvious we’re at loggerheads and will not reached a true consensus. The majority is clearly in favor of re-adding the diagram. The most reasonable/neutral POV among us, user:Berean_Hunter, even sits in favor of adding the diagram and tweaking the layout as necessary for aesthetic reasons. Only one user truly opposes. We need a neutral admin to make this call, otherwise this amounts to simple filibustering by an aggressive, non WP:NPOV minority. 155.70.23.45 (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC) I think this debate highlights a serious question that remains unanswered. Why was the floor plan removed and then discussed? It was already in the article when the questions arose. Why isn't the same action taken for all information that is disputed? If the general approach is to remove anything that comes into question, and then discuss its validity, then this entire article should be taken offline until a consensus can be reached on the content. Berean_Hunter and DreamGuy are clearly neutral here. I would like to hear an explanation from one of them. I am surprised that this debate has gone on this long. It is obvious that filibuster tactics are used here making it impossible to resolve anything. The problem with this situation is that action was clearly taken before any type of consensus was reached. I know that Wikipedia has no deadline but 2 people are currently on trial to determine whether or not they will spend a quarter century behind bars. It is unacceptable for Wikipedia to continue to misinform the public about this case, especially as the trial is ongoing. If the article cannot be corrected, then I suggested for Wikipedia to mimic the action of both SuperMarioMan and John (the action of removing disputed information as it is being discussed) and take this article offline until it can be corrected. If this action is not going to take place, then the floor plan should remain in the article, as it was, until a consensus can be reached. BruceFisher (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Exactly. SuperMarioMan had no consensus to remove the diagram but did it anyway. Then he and his friends filibuster and demand a complete consensus to reinstate it. If it is reinstated, one of these people will no doubt remove it again, ad infinitum. If anyone tries to add anything to the article the same people prevaricate and refer people to various noticeboards. Then they refuse to accept any decision coming from any such noticeboard. They also post in the noticeboard request themselves recommending that it not be approved. This article has been hijacked by a group which is determined to withold information from the reader for propagandistic purposes. These people are experts at gaming the Wikipedia system and have a lot of time available to do it. Jimbo Wales's intervention has not deterred them. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Cody, I seem to recall giving some quite clear reasoning for my past actions only yesterday - Wikipedia has a fair few policies and guidelines, to be sure, but I am disappointed to see that you have yet to familiarise yourself with the pages that have been linked for you. I also seem to recall that you have been warned on multiple occasions not to indulge in attacks and accusations of this nature. Note to Bruce: Berean Hunter for one has not objected to the revert that I made - sorry about that. I have already pointed out that the onus of ensuring that article content complies with policies and guidelines rests with the user who adds or restores the material, not the one who removes it. Being over-dramatic about the fate of the article (e.g. the proposal that it be taken off-line - sorry, that isn't how things work around here) adds little to the discussion and does not help it to progress smoothly - I would strongly urge that you re-read WP:DEADLINE. I'm not too interested in claims of "filibustering", if I'm being completely honest - that certain users continue to refer to a single revert that I made no less than five days ago, blowing it out of all reasonable proportion, seems to me to be filibustering of an altogether different sort. SuperMarioMan 12:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not interested in whether technically the burden of proof lies on the person restoring material. That is not the point which was raised. What I am interested in is whether you had consensus to remove the material. Did you have consensus from the other editors here to remove the diagram or did you not? Your actions would seem to indicate that anything can be removed from the article without consensus. Is that the case or not? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not interested in whether technically the burden of proof lies on the person restoring material. That is not the point which was raised. It is, however, the point that I am raising, and until you understand this most vital of points I see little benefit to be gained from prolonging this conversation. Why must you debate all of this in accordance with your own rules and preconceptions rather than the tried-and-tested policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has developed and that multiple users have presented to you? I will not further indulge this childish and irrelevant game of "Who Did What?", which constitutes a classic example of refusing to get the point. Is there a particular reason why it is only in the last couple of days, and not immediately after I made the revert, that you have started throwing around and repeating this allegation of impropriety? SuperMarioMan 13:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Your point does not answer my question as to whether you had consensus from your fellow editors to remove the diagram. It is an evasion of the question. Let me ask you the question again - Did you have consensus from the other editors here to remove the diagram or did you not? There is no need to get angry. I apologise if I have been out of line recently. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC) The cycle is bold, revert, discuss, which means that the person who reverts a bold addition does not have to have consensus for that action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you very much for the information, Salvio. Unfortunately that didn't answer my question. I did not ask whether a consensus was technically required for SuperMarioMan to remove the diagram. I asked if there was in fact a consensus of editors in favour of SuperMarioMan removing the diagram. So far that question has not been answered. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Rather than spelling out again what has already been spelt out for you countless times before, I'll attempt a different approach and use that last response as the basis for this answer. Salvio has stated that consensus is not "technically required" for a bold action, such as the removal of a diagram, and you seem to acknowledge this fact in the third sentence above. I therefore fail to understand the purpose of the fourth sentence - since consensus is not "technically required", whether there was consensus "in fact" is irrelevant to the discussion. To address the fifth sentence, there is therefore no answer to be given to the question referred to in the fourth sentence, because the third sentence renders it meaningless. Now, do you accept this refutation, or must this tendentiousness continue indefinitely? Considering the warnings that you have received, I don't think that the latter option would be wise, and I advise that you just drop it forthwith - the expression "making a mountain out of a molehill" comes to mind. Lastly, although your concern about me being "angry" is appreciated, I am not in actual fact "angry" - just a bit confused at how understanding something so simple could turn out to be such a challenge. SuperMarioMan 15:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC) SuperMarioMan, as you are well aware, many small details contribute to the whole. "molehills" as you call them become mountains when accumulated. If your argument is applied to every single detail of this article, it obviously has a drastic affect on the meaning of the content. I suggest for everyone here to take SuperMarioMan's lead and to remove every single detail that is disputed. Do a "bold revert" on every detail that is disputed and let the burden fall on those who would like to add the information back. That's the rules here. Let's follow the guidelines as viewed by SuperMarioMan. Wikipedia has strict rules about "living persons" but doesn't seem to mind pushing misinformation out to the masses that could very well influence a trial that is currently ongoing; a trial that will decide if 2 people spend a quarter century behind bars. So I repeat the request that all participants take SuperMarioMan's lead and remove all disputed information from the article. If we are to follow the guidelines set forth by SuperMarioMan then this should be done immediately. BruceFisher (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC) Your willful and pointed misinterpretation of just about all that I've said above does nothing to help matters, Bruce. Attempts at gaming Wikipedia are often not worth the effort, and calls for others to do so are not sensible. Sorry, but twisting my words into something absurdly counter-intuitive and counter-productive simply isn't a clever tactic. SuperMarioMan 17:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC) SuperMarioMan, you should run for public office. You are a pro at talking endlessly with out ever answering a question. You don't seem to have a problem with the diagram other than the fact that those who you disagree with believe it should be included. This "molehill" has been added and removed at least 8 times. All this does is keep people running in circles and allows those who control the article to maintain the content they desire. I don't think you took great care in deciding to do a "bold revert," instead you pushed your agenda knowing full well that it would annoy those you don't care for. Feel free to report me again. I know you will be itching to do so. I am speaking the truth and anyone with a clear head can see it. Where are the neutral administrators to clean up this disaster? BruceFisher (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus for the diagram to be there. When it was removed there was no consensus to remove it. At this time the only thing preventing it from being there is crass WP:WIKILAWYERING which tries to claim there must be 100% agreement to do something the people who don't want it there doesn't agree with while at the same time they insist they do not even need a simple majority to do the things they want to do. This is unacceptable, and not how Wikipedia's policies work.

I have restored the image. There is no need to wait any longer, both because the people who removed it did not wait for consensus for their side (which never came) and because we currently have a clear consensus.

Now of course, that consensus can change later should more or better arguments for why it should not be there be presented or so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I still think the image needs improvement, not going to get chance tonight to do it. Does anyone else (DreamGuy?) have chance to make the improvements (in case my !vote in the above section is not clear I don't think the current image is adequate to go in "as is") --Errant ^(chat!) 18:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant,the diagram has been discussed endlessly and the majority think it belongs in the article. SuperMarioMan removed it and he doesn't even seem to have a strong opinion against it. I find that odd. How many do you need to agree in order to consider it a consensus? We are told that discussing why it was removed isn't helpful? I don't follow this logic at all. Many aspects of this article are disputed yet still remain in the article. Why not remove every detail that is disputed and leave the burden on those who want to attempt to reinstate it? I don't think honest answers to these simply straight forward questions will be a distraction to this discussion. I am curious where the neutral administrators have gone. This article needs their attention immediately or it needs to be taken offline completely until the ongoing trial has a decided outcome. BruceFisher (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

or it needs to be taken offline completely until the ongoing trial has a decided outcome.; you won't find me disagreeing there. Preferably for a couple of years until those with super strong views have lost interest in the matter. On the subject of the image; numerous legit problems have been raised with the current example. I think they need to be resolved before placement. There is no rush, if it takes a week it takes a week. *shrug* Don't worry about it. The slower it moves the better really, on contentious subjects like this (in my experience anyway). --Errant ^(chat!) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"SuperMarioMan removed it and he doesn't even seem to have a strong opinion against it. I find that odd." In the time that has passed since I removed the image, I've changed my opinion to a certain extent. It won't be re-inserted by me, but neither will I remove it again. How is all of this "odd" or in some manner unusual? I resent how in the last two to three days my username has been clumsily dragged through the mud on this subject as if to have some sort of punishment handed down. Please leave it. SuperMarioMan 18:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreamguy, thank you for your attention here. I had not had the chance to read your comment when I posted above. I am asking that you please continue to give the needed attention to this article. You are clearly a neutral voice. BruceFisher (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreamguy mentioned above that he reinstated the picture but I do not see it in the article. Why is that? BruceFisher (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the article history indicates John deleted it. I agree that the diagram isn't perfect, but strongly object to his check in comment that indicated that certain editors opinions don't count on the talk page. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that DreamGuy take action against John for deleting the diagram once again without any discussion whatsoever. Is this really how Wikipedia is designed to operate? BruceFisher (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed it for the second time (I did not delete it) because I still think it's important that if we are to have a plan of the flat it should be as accurate and as well-sourced as possible. On a high profile article like this, we cannot use an image that is the wrong shape and is plastered with disclaimers. See also the objections from four other established Wikipedians. Regarding consensus, as I have said before, everyone's opinions count, but on a matter of what does and doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion, I take users like Tarc, Errant, Hipocrite or FormerIP more seriously than someone who has only ever edited this article. And of course, the onus is on those wishing to include something to demonstrate consensus; we don't ever need consensus to delete poorly sourced or suspect material. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John, someone will draw a diagram to scale and you will come back and say that we have no idea what the exact measurements are because we weren't inside the cottage taking measurements and you will delete it again. This debate has very little to do with the diagram itself but rather what side of the debated added the diagram in the first place. This debate over a minor detail highlights the problem with this entire article. If FornerIP added the diagram we wouldn't be having this debate. Its really that simple. Before someone takes the time to do the work, please let us all know if you will accept a drawing of the floor plan without exact measurements. Keep in mind that this is a simple floor plan to give readers a general sense of where the murder occurred. It also shows the reader that the cottage had 2 bathrooms. Please be honest and upfront with your answer. Do not allow someone to take the time and effort to create a better floor plan only to come in and delete it again. BruceFisher (talk) 11:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

John Bruce is absolutely right. No cogent argument has been made against the diagram other than regarding it's image quality. A clear consensus believes it is helpful to the article, so let's not bicker about font size and color while the article suffers for its non-inclusion.LedRush (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, LedRush - don't you mean "Bruce is absolutely right"? SuperMarioMan 13:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Um...I knew SOMEBODY was right. Thanks SuperMario.LedRush (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought SuperMarioMan was now neutral on this issue? Has his position changed again? It's clear that the majority feel the diagram belongs in the article. From what I can tell, consensus only applies to certain aspects of this article. The group cannot even agree on what the term consensus means so the apparent confusion causes the diagram to remain out of the article therefore allowing the minority to prevail. Can someone show me the link to the Wiki guideline that states that the minority vote rules? BruceFisher (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is determined through strength of arguments, not through a simple numerical majority - the stronger arguments of a smaller group can therefore outweigh the weaker arguments of a larger group. And no, my opinion hasn't "changed again" - I was simply remarking that LedRush appears to agree with you much more than with John, and was therefore slightly confused by his declaration that "John is absolutely right". On a side note, the slow edit war that has started to rage over the image has forced the article to enter another period of full protection... SuperMarioMan 17:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Led Rush is confused about anything. I think he sees exactly what's going on. Thanks for being there for him tho. I am sure he appreciates your kindness. Maybe he will send you some Wiki cookies. Yes, the article is under full protection again and if you take notice, the diagram is back in the article. My best guess would be that the full protection was caused by the diagram being repeatedly removed. BruceFisher (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is under protection because certain editors were edit warring, rather than discussing. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Your vicarious gratitude is appreciated, Bruce. Thanks also for the recommendation about Wiki Cookies - I'm not desperate for more of those right now, but thanks for putting in a good word for me nevertheless. One important point, however: according to the notice at the top of the article, "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version". Furthermore, an uninvolved user has still not determined the consensus with regard to inclusion or exclusion of the image. Most users at the topic have voiced their opinions; it is now a matter of waiting for an external judgement to be made, in accordance with Berean Hunter's guidance at the head of this section. Being neutral overall on this subject, I will accept whatever consensus that may be. SuperMarioMan 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Being neutral overall on this subject" - usually when people are neutral on a subject they don't put so much time in on that subject. They also don't do bold reverts on that subject that they don't feel strongly about. You are right in the middle of the edit warring mentioned above, yet you are now neutral. This can't get much more convoluted. DreamGuy voiced his opinion on his talk page about this article. I suggest that everyone read it. BruceFisher (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, making one single revert doesn't equate to "being in the middle of the edit-warring". Second, that happened days ago - why is it still bothering you days later? Third, I would respectfully argue that the matter is only "convoluted" because you cannot let go and insist on over-analysing each detail to the point of tedium, demanding answers for questions that have already been explained to you and refusing to listen to what numerous others have politely pointed out more than once. Fourth, what point are you actually trying to make, and is this discussion actually supposed to go anywhere? I'll note that an earlier comment on this talk page recommended that we all stop discussing each other and return our focus to the article itself - may I request that you please do so? SuperMarioMan 21:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Image at Commons

It is somewhat frustrating to see someone attempt to delete the file from Commons here. That isn't the place to have that kind of deletion discussion in light of this one going on. I don't believe that is just a coincidence. There needs to be more good faith than this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this will help to improve the image, it is the best I have seen and is the one used by the court. http://www.friendsofamanda.org/miscellaneous/police_crime_scene_composite.jpgRoseMontague (talk) 12:55, 13 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)

The required edit is a bit more complicated. The third paragraphs of this section covers the same events as the second paragraphs. They should be merged into one paragraph and cleaned up. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If we can get a replacement that has consensus, we can request an admin to make the change. Anyone have a suggestion on how this might look to start the process? Ravensfire (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I will give it a shot early next week. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In this same section, does anyone have a source for Raffaele's actual words when he said Amanda wasn't with him all night? --Footwarrior (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite, "People Arrested for the Murder: Rudy Guede"

--Tjholme (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC) I propose the following as replacement for the current section on Rudy Guede:

Rudy Hermann Guede (born 26 December 1986, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire[18]) was aged 20 at the time of the murder. He had come to Perugia at the age of five with his father,[19] who worked as a labourer in the 1990s.[20] At the age of 16, when his father left Italy, Guede was informally adopted by the family of a local businessman.[19] He also had an aunt who lived in Lecco, about 50 km north of Milan, who he sometimes lived with. Though unemployed at the time of the murder, Guede had acquired joint Italian nationality and sporadically studied accounting and hotelkeeping.[20] Guede had no record of a criminal conviction at the time of the murder but was well-known to the police as a petty criminal. He had been arrested in connection with the burglary of a Milan daycare center and for possessing stolen goods from an earlier second story burglary of a Perugian law office. After Guede's arrest in the Kercher murder, local bartender Christian Tramontano made a statement to police indicating that he recognized Guede as the man he had confronted four months earlier when he discovered him burglarizing his home in the night. According to Tramontano, he awoke to find a young black man rummaging through his belongings in his second floor bedroom. He confronted the man and chased him downstairs to the locked front door. Unable to escape, the man turned on him and brandished first a chair then a knife to keep him at bay [74]. Nick Squires of The Daily 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."[22]

Tjholme (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the re-write. I might add information about him knowing the downstairs guys and that he had only met Amanda and Meredith briefly and Raffaele not at all. Another thing to add might be that he was late on his rent and the land lady was asking for proof of employment. He also had tried to have a basketball career. Just suggestions. It's a big improvement and we can do the same with the other profiles as well.Issymo (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it as well, this is the way (effort wise) this article should be being dealt with.--Truth Mom (talk) 04:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good. I have no issues with this rewrite. The reader needs to know about Rudy Guede's recent past just prior to the murder. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A little detailed IMO. Excessive detail on the Tramontano break in are not overly relevant and I would reduce the description of his arrests to "Guede was known to the police, and had been arrested several times in connection with various burlaries, but at the time of the murder had no record of a criminal convicion." --Errant ^(chat!) 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

With Errant's change, I'm ok with it.LedRush (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that a suspect's history of pulling a knife when confronted during a burglary isn't relative to a knife murder where there are signs of breaking and entering. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for "had been arrested several times in connection with various burglaries"? --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Digging the sources used in the above. FormerIP is right we need a source that mentions these things, the ones used above do not mention this. Also one of the sources says he did have a criminal record... so that needs to be clarified. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Christian Tramontano break in is an important detail and witness. I think that should definitely be kept. It is a witness testimony for a very similar burglary where a knife was drawn.Issymo (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh... but the problem is that it is unrelated to this incident. Any similarities would have to be commented on by a reliable independant source --Errant ^(chat!) 22:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Tramontano's evidence is really a very minor piece of the jigsaw. But if it is to be included, it should be mentioned that Tramontano was not able to give a positive identification of Guede, only "mi sembra di riconoscere" ("I think I recognise him" - Massei, p 34) and that the trial jury found no similarities between the Tramontano burglary and the staged break in at Kercher's flat in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's added, the "trial jury" actually is only "Massei". We have no idea what the other jurors thought. So that is technically wrong.(GeniusApprentice (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Demsey's book and at least a couple news articles could be used as references for the Christian Tramontano incident. We don't need to reference Massei as a source. Guede was never arrested for this incident, but he was arrested for the Milan school break in. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The defence aren't paying us, so we would need Massei as a source in order to ensure NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would hope FormerIP's personal attack above would be stricken.

Also, I thought it had been argued extensively above that we should only use primary sources for non-controversial statements of fact, and that secondary sources are better in general.LedRush (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP seems to change his argument to whatever he thinks at any particular time will help rationalize whatever he wanted done in the first place, which is why he often contradicts himself.DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Dempsey book is a more than adequate WP:RS for this topic, and many others. It does not violate WP:NPOV in any way to cite sources who have opinions, otherwise no sources would be allowed in this article at all. Dempsey is a reliable source with notable commentary on the case as well as a secondary source making mention of notable topics already mentioned in primary sources. Attempts to censor Dempsey as a source are clearly based on a complete misunderstanding of policy as well as the demonstrated desire for the article to take sides. DreamGuy (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Dempsey is RS for some material. It is probably fine for fact. Opinion, unless supported in other RS's (preferably ones with different viewpoints) should be attributed. And we should take care with BLP material taken from the book. The problem with taking factual information from such sources is that opinionated authors often present facts in ways which support their views, so it is good practice to be reasonably cynical about material. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with admin:Errant that the piece is a bit wordy and needs better

citations. I didn't want to disrespect the previous editor by overwriting his/her text completely so I tried to insert content into the existing framework. Admittedly it doesn't flow as well as I would have liked. However, in a case involving a knife murder and evidence of a second story break-in I think the fact that the one fully convicted murderer in the case has a history of involvement in burglaries featuring second story break-ins, broken windows and knives is more than simply germane, it's critical in painting the correct, neutral picture of the man. I don't want to paint him as either demon or choirboy.. Much of his life and history appears to be quite normal, but there's also more than a suggestion of a dark side, and the casual reader should get that impression as well. As for Tramontano, his statement was strong enough to be allowed into the trial so I'd think it's strong enough to be mentioned in an article about the case. Maybe with the insertion of the word 'thought' to more accurately reflect his statement. Tjholme (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like discussion has run it's course on this issue. Can I assume we have enough consensus to go ahead with inserting my piece on the 17th ? The rewrite has good support and no vigorous or compelling opposition, i.e. probably as close to consensus as this group is likely to get. Please state for the voting record, support or oppose.Tjholme (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Tjholme (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: BruceFisher (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. For reasons stated above. --FormerIP (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very well written segment with a lot of great details added. I would like to see the information on Knox and Sollecito expanded as well. Issymo (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Assuming Errant's change is enacted. Per the clear consensus above and the fact that no opposing reasoning has been articulated.LedRush (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Very good rewrite. I like the expansion of details within it. Great Job :) --Truth Mom (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:DRAMAOUT

[Note from Jimbo: please let's all sign this and have a great week! Please sign if you can!]

In the spirit of WP:DRAMAOUT, I hereby pledge to try my best to avoid comment on the behavior of other editors of this or related articles at least until it is past midnight this coming Friday night everywhere in the world. I will try to follow this no matter how annoying someone might be. I further pledge to set aside my own views of this case, to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to find guilt or innocence nor to try to sway public opinion. I will focus my energy that Wikipedia fairly and accurately describes the case and controversies surrounding it in such a way that all of us - no matter what our beliefs about the case - can shake hands at the end of the week and say "We are proud of what we have done here."

1. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

   Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Pledges only work if pledges follow them. The choice of others to comment on editors makes it inappropriate for me to remain here. Hipocrite (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

2. --Truth Mom (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
3. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
4. --LedRush (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
5. --⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
6. --BruceFisher (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
7. Sorry for earlier, grouchy day for me :) not my usual approach! --Errant ^(chat!) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Fancourt (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
9. --Tjholme (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
10. --NigelPScott (User talk:NigelPScott) 22.25, 11 April, 2011 (UTC) NigelPScott (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
11. --Perk10 (talk) 06:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10
12. --Issymo (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
13. --CodyJoeBibby CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
14. --Turningpointe (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We note here that Tarc did not add a signature to the Dramaout as JW requested; I would ask Errant, Dreamguy and JW to take note of those who have and remind those who have not that it does not give them carte blanche to make condescending and insulting comments ("they are too wrapped up in the emotions of the case to really contribute objectively") and accusations about "single purpose accounts" against others here because they have agreed to behave in a civilized manner and not discuss or point out the negative or disturbing attributes of any given editor (at least until "after midnight on Friday"). It is indicative of a "bully" when one launches attacks on those who, for one reason or another, can not or will not fight back. It is also a sign of arrogance and "territorial" behavior, both of which arise when ones POV has been bullied into place then left without challenge for whatever reason for far, far too long. I imagine everyone started with Wiki somewhere because of an interest in something; I imagine everyone posted their first piece, talk..et al..somewhat timidly, as if testing the water, on an article illuminating a subject that was of a 'particular' or 'unusual' amount of interest to them. My first post was on December 23 right here: You can see where that went. (annulla) I recall there had been other attempts made under an IP but those edits were also 'annulled'. My eyes have been on this and other Wiki pages in general for a long time but I would never assume "squatting" rights as others apparently have and I am shocked that anyone would so actively resent those who wish to add a different point of view. I request disciplinary action be taken against any who would try to bully we who signed JW's 'Dramaout' into a negative verbal dispute. Thankyou.Fancourt (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Small point; I have always opposed to concept of the "drama out" and have in fact been a signatory to the "counter" sections at those, e.g. Wikipedia:NODRAMA/1#Counter-protest. I believe that doing the "hey look at me, I'm not causing drama!" shtick is in itself quote overdramatic. You attempt to "call me out" is a shining example of that. So yea, I have no interest in signing something that is, IMO, meaningless. I do not care passionately about this case one way or the other; Amanda Knox and the others can go free or be jailed for life, whatever the evidence points to is what it is. I would just like to see the fervent activism come to a end; it is misplaced and not conducive to editing an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that all involved look at the content being proposed and not at those suggesting it. If the information can be properly sourced it should not matter if a veteran Wikipedian or a newbie brought it forward. This article has had many issues and some of those issues occurred because Wikipedia relies on the media's account of any given situation. This case was handled very poorly by the press. This is not simply my opinion, there is documented proof showing egregious errors made by the press. This inacurate reporting no doubt influenced the wikipedia article. As the media works to correct the errors of their past, much more accurate information is coming to light. Those who have already based their beliefs on the original (inaccurate) reporting may find the new information hard to accept. This is the unfortunate damage caused by negligence in the media and I feel this negligence has led to much of the tension that we have seen here. I think that Mr. Wales suggestion above is excellent and I hope to see everyone sign on.

It seems to me that the topic of single purpose accounts was brought up at an odd time. Another user referred to the victim as "Dear Meredith." Tarc responded by saying that comments like that show the problems with single purpose accounts. I honestly cannot see how showing compassion for the victim is beneficial to one side or the other. I would hope we would all show compassion in this regard and I would certainly hope this is one detail that we could all agree on. BruceFisher (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Drama is like a viscous monster, that being said if not a single source of food is offered to it, It starves to death : ) Let them be, I simply pay them no mind.If your not part of the solution, it makes you part of the problem .....Let us continue our NO DRAMA efforts, and get to the reason we are all here :) Thank you kindly, --Truth Mom (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Washington Superior Court Judge calls Knox 100% Innocent after researching case and details for 3 years

This is just another article that evidences actual controversy over the ruling in the the Knox and Sollecito trials. It gives a good overview of how many in the US perceived the Italian media coverage of the trial, as well as some popular controversies in the first trial. I would think the cite could be used in a new sentence in the media coverage section, or merely as an added citation to sentences in that section. [4] LedRush (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, off the bat I'd say that the personal investigative is 100% irrelevant; despite the judicial position held, nothing qualifies this man as an expert in the field. Apart from that, what I also notice about much of the Knox-is-innocent sourcing is that it originates from Seattle-centric media outlets, particularly seattlepi.com. Beyond the occasional Time or Vanity Fair story, is there anywhere else less...localized and too close to the source...that is keeping this "controversy" afloat? Tarc (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you actually disputing that the case is controversial? Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would think that a superior court judge would be considered a general legal expert, not to mention an expert at judging the relevance of evidence and the guilt or innocence of the accused. In fact, I would say this is a judge's primary expertise.

Regarding coverage, this story was picked up in a few other outlets (radar.com, examiner online). Also, Time, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, CBS and many other major media outlets have weighed in on the controversy in the last two weeks (we even have some of these cited in the article!), so it is fair to say this case is still extremely controversial.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Need to be a bit careful, but I see no reason not to include his opinion in the article under the critical responses, he is qualified to comment on the legal process I guess. We'd have to figure out the exact quotes but I'd be inclined to go with saying he thinks she is innocent and quote him on his views of the justice system. Perhaps: "Their justice system is great, but like our justice system, it is run by people and can be abused, mistakes can be made," --Errant ^(chat!) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The balancing information would be Heavey's close family relationship to Knox [5] and the fact that he is an organiser for the Friends of Amanda campaign [6]. --FormerIP (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, seems reasonable. So how about this; Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey, a friend of the Knox family and organiser for the Friends of Amanda campaign, at an April 1 2011 dinner said that he believed Knox to be innocent. He criticised the trial calling it "a terrible injustice", but said that the appeals judge "appears to be pretty fair." Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 18:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP that the balancing info must be presented. I like Errant's formulation, but wonder if we couldn't get more specific with criticisms without adding undue bulk. If not, I'm fine with Errant's, but I will go to the source and see if I can't find something both specific and appropriate.LedRush (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I just don't see the relevance. At first it appeared to be just some non-partial judge who looked at the notes and evidence and what not and declared "she's innocent". Honestly, that was bad enough; again, what importance should be given to someone who is for all intents and purposes simply second-guessing a court case from another jurisdiction? Now that we know that this person is part and parcel to one side of the controversy, that reduces what appeared to be an impartial point of view to a partisan one. And hat we're left with is a person in the supporter camp expressing...support. Is that notable?

To LedRush; did you have any knowledge of Michael Heavey's involvement before you posted that seattlepi.com link here? Tarc (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't. When I read the aritcle it said that he had investigated the matter for 3 years and I assumed that he would be like the DNA experts or Moore, who started off impartially, were convinced of innocence, and then lent support to the Knox campaign. This appears to be different as he already had a connection. I think the information is still relevant, but perhaps this is better placed in the support for Knox section with an introduction to what the Friends of Amanda group is.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant's wording sounds accurate and also addresses FormerIP's concerns. BruceFisher (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this impartial wording could be criticized. Tarc might like to get some quotes from other US judges or lawyers who have spoken out about the fairness of Knox's trial. That would balance things out. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it really wouldn't. Private citizens expressing their personal opinions on the matter are not really relevant to the subject matter. Everyone has opinions, just like everyone has a certain famous body part. That doesn't mean they get to be name-dropped into the article, especially if they are biased. Adding a laundry list of "I agree with the verdict", "I disagree with the verdict" is the last thing this article needs to be cluttered with. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The case is controversial. The media covers that controversy. We cite to what the media covers.LedRush (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is evidence of controversy. The case is controversial and the article should reflect that clearly. BruceFisher (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither of your comments addressed what I actually said, which was discussing the relevance of people's opinions to the case. In the Support for Knox section as it stands now, we have the Knox family (obviously), Senator Cantwell (presumably the representative of the district where Knoxs' family is from, i.e. speaking for her constituents) and Hillary Clinton (in her capacity as the Secretary of State. And you wish to place the support of a partisan supporter alongside the family, a sitting Senator and the Secretary of State, simply because the SeattlePI published it?

And yes, overall there is some degree of controversy regarding the case. But what IMO some here are missing is that there's a critical difference between covering the controversy and advocating for what the controversy is about. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find this is one of the most controversial cases of the century given the amount of books, articles, TV, film and internet coverage about it. I don't see how that's reasonably disputable. Judge Heavey's comments were reported on in the media at some length, so we refer to the fact that they were reported. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]I'm pretty sure I directly addressed your argument, but whatever. Do you think that the Friends of Amanda group is not notable enough for a "support of Knox" section, despite their widespread coverage in the news?LedRush (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only - I would have no problem with such a section. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, the article you linked to does not mention the "Friends of Amanda" group, it only details Harvey making these comments on his own behalf at a Rotary Club breakfast. I will also note that the original article comes from the Bellevue Reporter, a weekly, local circular. So in summation; we have a judge, once censured for working on pro-Knox advocacy on the job and also a member of an advocacy group of same, who, over pancakes and sausages to fellow Rotarians, declares Knox "100% innocent" of the murder, a case in which he became interested after seeing it in the news. This is not encyclopedia or notable in the slightest. And Cody, "trial of the century" is a gross exaggeration; I can rattle off anything from OJ to the Menendez brothers to Son of Sam to the Scopes trial that far, far outshadows this. Also, the SeattlePI reporting the Bellevue reporter's story is hardly "media at some length". Please, tone down the hyperbole. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what your point about the article not mentioning Friends of Amanda is. I have now suggested that we introduce Friends of Amanda to the article in the "support for amanda". I also suggested that this quote from the judge could find a place in such a section, in substantially similar form to the versions that Errant and I have suggested. And while your POV on what the judge said is humorous, it is obviously not the full picture. It would be just as accurate to state that a superior court trial judge, after investigating the evidence for over 3 years, has come to the conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, and that the police actions in relation to this crime were unethical. However, that would ignore some important info, which is why we have the different formulations proposed on this thread.

Regarding the crime of the century stuff, Tarc, you listed a bunch of crimes that did not happen in this century. I don't know if this is the crime of the century or not (I would imagine crime of the decade would be a less misleading name), but I can't think of a more publicized and controversial crime in the 2000s off the top of my head.LedRush (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If people are determined to be pedantic about it then yes, more accurately I perhaps should have said 'most controversial case this century so far'. I of course was not claiming to be able to see the future. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You're conflating two issues here. This section is about the judges comments, if you wish to add something about "friends of amanda" or whatever, then take that up somewhere new. This person's personal opinion on the case is IMO not relevant to the article; it adds no value, no meaning, this person is not a famous figure or personality and has a proven bias when it cmes to the subject matter. As for "crime of the century", I use the term colloquially, i.e. "in the last 100 years" sense. Not literally since 2001. Facepalm . Tarc (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get your supposed colloquial use of the word 'century' as meaning the last 100 years, since both I and LedRush merely assumed you were mistaken. It can't be very colloquial if people just simply don't know what you mean. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]The issue of the Friends of Amanda has been brought up here, having grown organically out of an open dialog, as should happen on WP. If you cannot discuss these related issues in one spot, you don't have to.

[EC]On the term century, I have never, ever heard the term to mean "in the last 100 years". Perhaps this is an issue with American/UK English.LedRush (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not even the crime of this century - just off the top of my head, Andrea Yates, The Scream. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of Andrea Yates. I dimly remember the Munch painting being stolen. They got it back, didn't they? Searching for Andrea Yates on Google returns 463,000 results. Searching for Amanda Knox returns 7,790,000 results. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Shows the power of a PR campaign, doesn't it? Ravensfire (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:GOOGLE. Also, can you think of a reason why a 2001 case would have fewer hits than a 2011 case? I can find multiple neutral reliable sources calling both the Munch painting and the Yates trial possible crimes of the century. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure the PR campaign was responsible for the Italian and British presses for demonizing Knox and sensationalizing every aspect of her life until she was referenced as a drug addicted slut who slept with 70 men in 60 days in Italy. That's all the Knox's fault...right.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Come on, seriously? Ravensfire (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I find the comment about the PR campaign to be out of line. If you would like to suggest that continued interest in this case has been fueled by a PR campaign then I would expect you to back that up with proof. This case remains in the news because its highly controversial, not because Amanda's family paid a firm to control the media (a claim that is absurd of course), as we have heard repeated extensively throughout this ordeal. I don't know if you realized what your statement referred to in terms of this case, but discussion involving PR campaigns are more that often directed at attacking the Knox family. The truth is Amanda's parents hired a firm to help organize interviews with the media. They were in a situation that was very new to them and asking for assistance was not out of the ordinary. BruceFisher (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[6ECs]I guess it's not really productive to discuss here, but I wouldn't think those crimes close to this one in terms of controversy or media coverage. However, I haven't reasearched this and don't think we should waste or time discussing this. We don't need this to the biggest anything - we merely need to report on the controversy. (on a side note, thank you for adding to the ever expanding list of people who have biographical articles on WP despite being famous for 1 crime)LedRush (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What was controversial about either of the cases you mention? Can you find any neutral reliable source which describes either case as more controversial than the Knox case? I think you need to give up this argument because it's futile. I have no clue who Andrea Yates is or who stole The Scream. Find something more interesting please. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the following:

At an April 1 2011 dinner Washington Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey, a friend of the Knox family and organiser for the Friends of Amanda campaign, said that he believed Knox is "100 percent innocent". He criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and called the trial "a terrible injustice"[, though he said that the appeals judge "appears to be pretty fair]."

I don't mind the bracketed text being there, but I'm not really sure it adds too much.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned that we are inserting opinions of little notability. A superior court judge who is family friends with the accused? People understand that Washington "Superior" courts are the first trial courts in Washington, right? It's superior only to the courts of Limited Jurisdiction - traffic court, small claims, and small actions. Hipocrite (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In common law countries, superior courts just mean courts of general jurisdiction. In the US, states that name a level of court as superior are referring to the lowest form of general jurisdiction courts (i.e., above all limited jurisdiction courts, but below appellate and final (supreme) court levels).LedRush (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, so why are we including the opinions of a justice of such a low level court? Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the highest trial court judge as "such a low level court" or someone who's opinion should be discounted. But, as per above, I think it's best to fold this into an explanation of the Friends of Amanda group in the "support for knox" section of the article.LedRush (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In the grand scheme of the judicial system, state trial judges are pretty darn low. Ravensfire (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/s's) This should definitely not go in the Media Coverage section, it's much more appropriate for the Support section since it's just uncritical reporting of what the person said. Better would be to recast it to talk about Friends of Amanda first, perhaps using one of Heavey's quotes. To dwell more on Heavey would perhaps mean balance would require a note that the person was censured (as I read it here) for actions in the same interestcarried out while a judge. Franamax (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Judge Heavey is known to the Knox family, as has been stated. I believe his children may have attended the same school as Amanda. That connection would have made him interested in the case, but he waded into it in public because he thinks that the evidence used to convict does not stack up. It is not reasonable to suppose that a judge would put his reputation on the line just as a favour to the family. The same goes for the other people with particular skills e.g. Steve Moore, who have spoken out. These guys have considerable careers and reputations and would not go public on a whim. It seems that as soon as anyone with credentials looks at the case and questions the judgement, some editors immediately dismiss them as friends of the accused and say they should be ignored as being biased. I would say that their views are at least as relevant as those of some of the tabloid journalists whose articles have been quoted here as reliable sources. Judge Heavey is not the only Knox advocate, or even the best qualified, but his comments are newsworthy and worthy of inclusion. I support LedRush in this and I think his form of words could be used. NigelPScott (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Franamax is right, this is definitely for the support section. He is giving his opinion in support. I think he is notable for the close association and his role in "Friends of Amanda". Ultimately I never see much issue with including some opinions like this we'll probably end up with quite a few but at some point in the future they can be reviewed and the least notable culled. and say they should be ignored as being biased.; no, but their opinions alone cannot be considered reliable. If they advance a view, it is one of support, unless neutral reliable sources agree. This is the core to being a reliable source. That he is newsworthy doesn't matter as we are specifically not a news source :) The rest of your argument is speculation, and not relevant. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't LedRush right...he said it first *sad panda face*LedRush (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My view (with myself being connected to a Superior Court Judge personally) (Not this one) are that it really takes a serious and strong issue for them to stand up for or even against any situation like this. Judges, are not ones to question the work or orders of others, unless they have been thoroughly convinced of the issue at hand. This is something to seriously take note of.I would like to see this and other means of support brought into the article as well. I also would like to see more elements for Raffaele, Rudy, and Dear Meredith into this brought into this article. The main focus from my view, is the focus directly to Amanda only. --Truth Mom (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, it's interesting that Rudy Guede has no support at all. Even his foster family disowned him. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is that "interesting" ? That seems like a subtle dig more than a constructive addition to the conversation. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A note on methodology: I think it is not up to Wikipedia to determine whether Judge Heavey's dinner remarks are notable, nor whether he is a biased/unbiased observer of the case, nor whether his opinions are true or false. I think what we have to look at is whether or not his remarks are notable in the sense of covered by reliable sources. So far, we have only one major newspaper reporting on his remarks. Therefore, in my view, there is not yet sufficient reason to include them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, the current proposed text below does not include or reference this quote.LedRush (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Text for Addition to Support for Knox Section

In the summer of 2008, a group of individuals who believe that Knox is innocent formed an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda.[7] This group believes that Knox has been vilified by a stubborn prosecutor in charge of a flawed case.[8] Washington Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey, a friend of the Knox family and organiser for the Friends of Amanda campaign, has stated that he believes Knox is "100 percent innocent". At an April 1 2011 dinner Heavey criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and called the trial "a terrible injustice".[9]

This is a very rough sketch, and I welcome comments to both content and grammar.LedRush (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

No, because by your first source (which I found a few hours ago, wondering why no-one had brought that one up), "group of individuals" seems misleading, there appears to be non-arms-length connections here. And again, if you want to mention that one quoted is a judge, it seems to me you're duty-bound to note the judge was censured in a case revolving around the same matter. How can you say someone is a judge without mentioning that their judgement was found lacking in the very area in which you are quoting their comments? If it's just a person commenting, fine. If you want to say they are a judge, surely you also have to note the findings of the Judicial Commission on a directly-related matter. What am I missing here? Franamax (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying "no" to. I also don't know what you mean about there appearing to be non-arms-length connections. Also, the admonishment he received doesn't seem to relate to any of his qualifications as a judge, nor does it affect his statements. However, the consensus is to insist on this information, it doesn't seem to harm the actual statements much, other than bogging down a simple statement with an extra, superfluous statement.LedRush (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with mentioning the censure, so long as it is qualified correctly that the reason he was censured was for using court stationary to comment on a pending criminal matter in an attempt to influence the proceeding. The exact text of the charges is "Respondent is charged with violating Canons 1, 2(A)and 2(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct by writing letters on official court stationary to Nicola Mancino, Judge Claudia Matteini, and Giuliano Mignini (members of the Italian judicial system) on behalf of criminal defendant Amanda Knox; utilizing court staff to type those letters; and speaking publicly on several occasions about that same pending criminal case in an attempt to influence the proceeding." Heavy also self reported the conduct to the CJC, which I think is worth mentioning, but maybe not crucial (although all this can easily fit in one sentence, so I don't see it being a big deal). (GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Agree with Franamax. Also, we wouldn't say "summer of 2008", as we don't use seasons to denote time. We could say "mid-2008" instead. --John (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c with below, haven't read that yet) Sorry LedRush that I may have to temporarily book off, but to address your query of what "No" meant, I agree it's a little ambiguous. So specifically, my initial objections were: "group of indidivuals" seems to obscure the fact that there were friends and acquaintances of the family who banded together; and I question using the last sentence, where you quote someone saying something during dinner. I say lots of stuff at the dinner table. Reviewing it all (which is what I have done since my last post 'til now when I must stop), I would rather switch around to say that I can't really agree with any of your proposed wording. At this point, with all due respect, I'm thinking that ErrantX's wording way up there would be a better starting point for discussion. Franamax (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My language was only one step removed from Errant's, and we were talking about the same speech at the same rotary club dinner (not some random dinner). Anyway, hopefully my version below addresses these concerns in a way amenable to you.LedRush (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this: I've added the info about the admonishment, and combined two sentences to make this section not become unwieldy...I deleted where and wen Heavey made the remarks, and also deleted that he thought she was innocent. I also deleted that he is a family friend (merely because we already say that Friends of Amanda contains family friends and because there were too many commas in the sentence) and added the admonishment info.

In mid-2008, a group of friends, lawyers, writers and scienteists who believe that Knox is innocent formed an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda.[10][11] This group, which says that it is not affiliated with the Knox family and receives no funding from them,[12] believes that Knox has been vilified by a stubborn prosecutor in charge of a flawed case.[13] Washington Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey, an organiser for the Friends of Amanda campaign who was officially admonished for using court stationary to write letters in support of Knox, has criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and called the trial "a terrible injustice".[14]LedRush (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This misses out the relationship between Heavey and Knox, which I think is the most important part. --FormerIP (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I explained the reasoning above. Would you like to respond to that or suggest how we overcome this need to introduce all this extra information seamlessly?LedRush (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is really that the person quoted is a friend of the family and not merely a "Washington Superior Court Judge" who got interested in the campaign for some unknown reason. I'll have a go at an alternative version. --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one of the reasons I included the fact that the Friends organization includes friends of the family (which should be obvious, but...). LedRush (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be obvious and we don't really need that detail in the first sentence IMO. It could easily be elided to: "In mid-2008, an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda was formed in Seattle". What needs to be clear is that the person quoted is a close friend of the Knox family. All that's needed is to add "and close friend of the Knox family" to the text. I don't think this would be repetitive but, in any event, the alternative is worse because it is misleading. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I disagree that my language is misleading (in fact, it is quite leading) but in the spirit of compromise let's include the language. I know in the sources I found said that Heavey's daughters were friends with Knox, but I don't recall them saying that Heavey himself was a friend of the family. Could you provide a source, and then we'll just use the description that that source uses?LedRush (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

"vilified by a stubborn prosecutor in charge of a flawed case"; do we have this is quote form? Or a quote that says how they view the case? That way it is more clearly attributed to them (i.e. not in our voice) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that comes across as in our voice (the proposal says "This group...believes that". Anyhow, this is the source for that [15].

Here's a source for "family friend": [16]. --FormerIP (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the form that this attempted paragraph is now taking

"[Insert name], a person with [list biases and connections here] has voiced support for [insert defendant name]."

a local weekly circular quotes someone's support of a participant in the case, someone so connected to one side that we have to devote as much text to qualifying his opinion as we do to the opinion itself. I strongly urge the reconsideration (by neutral editors) of adding this passage at all. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems astonishing to me that a neutral editor could wish to exclude an explanation of the Friends of Amanda group from a section of the article dedicated to support for Knox. If we want, we could take out Heavey and put in their official legal counsel, which would decrease the amount of qualification which is done, but the group and it's views are notable.LedRush (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I see little to be astonished about when the quote in question originates in a suburban weekly flyer and is reprinted in a web newspaper. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you would be astonished if you actually addressed my point (and didn't misrepresent it): an explanation of the Friends of Amanda group from a section of the article dedicated to support for Knox is necessary and appropriate. The group is widely covered in the mainstream media (including Time (see below), newsweek, the telegraph, the guardian (see below) and on and on), it was only one Heavey quote which was from a regional newspaper. We could make essentially the same quote from Bremner from this Time piece [17].LedRush (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And that gets back to what I noted yesterday, you're are conflating two issues and quotes into one. We have the "Friends of Amanda" noted by sources such as The Telegraph. Then we have Judge Heavey and his pot-luck breakfast speech. The notability of the former does not confer notability on the latter, even if the judge is a member of said group. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is your view, I suggest making a contructive suggestion regarding the proposed text, rather than merely obstructing any insertion of any kind. It seems that your newly found position is that you're ok with the first two sentences, but not ok with the third. Is that right?LedRush (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The newest version:

In mid-2008, a group of friends, lawyers, writers and scienteists who believe that Knox is innocent formed an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda.[18][19] This group, which says that it is not affiliated with the Knox family and receives no funding from them,[20] believes that Knox has been vilified by a stubborn prosecutor in charge of a flawed case.[21] Washington Superior Court Judge Mike Heavey, a Knox family friend and organiser for the Friends of Amanda campaign who was officially admonished for using court stationary to write letters in support of Knox[22], has criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and called the trial "a terrible injustice".[23][24]

The British documentary “The Trials of Amanda Knox” which was broadcast in the US in March, 2010 devotes considerable time to Judge Heavey’s comments on the case. That documentary is a reliable secondary source and is probably the best coverage of the case out there. It is quite neutral. Judge Heavy got into some minor trouble with the State Judicial commission for speaking out in Ms. Knox’s behalf. Important documents that he wrote to the Italian judiciary are here.

http://www.cjc.state.wa.us/Case%20Material/2010/5975%20Heavey%20SOC%20Answer.pdf

In those letters he talks about the HIV incident which is not part of the present Wikipedia article and needs to be. The TLC documentary is available on Youtube and should be viewed by all those who seek to study this case. It is very well done. This court document also gives direct source and wording, to the relationship at discussion, and how it became of his involvement.--Truth Mom (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Substituting counsel Bremner for Judge Heavey, per above discussion.

In mid-2008, a group of friends, lawyers, writers and scienteists who believe that Knox is innocent formed an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda.[25][26] This group, which says that it is not affiliated with the Knox family and receives no funding from them,[27] believes that Knox has been vilified by a stubborn prosecutor in charge of a flawed case.[28] The group's counsel, former prosecutor Anne Bremner, has criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and the character assissination the media have directed at Knox.[29][30]LedRush (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the substitution? Heavey seems to be their most prominent member. His testimony may need caveats, but that's sort of the point. I don't think its good to give the group sanitised coverage in that way. --FormerIP (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The substitution was simply because of Tarc's comments above (which Jimbo also related after the fact). Bremner is far more quoted in the mainstream press, and is the counsel for the group, and is sometimes referred to as the group's spokesperson. I don't see how including her provides sanitised coverage, but including Heavey doesn't. Are you ok with Heavey because he was admonished, or in spite of that fact? Regardless, this is going in the support for Knox section...it seems obvious to me that we would cover mainstream coverage of support for Knox. And it doesn't get more mainstream than Time and MSNBC.LedRush (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "been vilified by a stubborn prosecutor in charge of a flawed case" is a too-close paraphrase of a copyrighted work, so if it goes in any section at all, we can refer to the appropriate noticeboard. And why is the "not affiliated" and "no funding" bit in there? It seems to be pre-answering the unmentioned facts of friendly connections and fundraising. Franamax (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The non affiliated and no funding bits are reported in the press, and are there because every single time anyone (whether scientist, lawyer, or reporter) says something critical of the trial, everyone and their mother wants to know what the connection is to the Knox family, whether it's there or not. In this case, it seems a relevant piece of information. I don't think that the phrase you list is a copyright violation, but I will rewrite it:

In mid-2008, a group of friends, lawyers, writers and scienteists who believe that Knox is innocent formed an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda.[31][32] This group, which says that it is not affiliated with the Knox family and receives no funding from them,[33] believes that Knox has been demonized by a prosecutor obstinately forwarding a case with flaws.[34] The group's counsel, former prosecutor Anne Bremner, has criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and the character assissination the media have directed at Knox.[35][36]LedRush (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no, changing verbs and adverbs while preserving the structure and intent of the original writing is still a copyright violation (or plagiarism if you prefer). I suggest you read up on our copyright policy and you may also find our essay on close paraphrasing helpful. We write in our own words here, we don't just try to barely conceal our use of the words of others. Why are you insisting on using the phrasing of a (fairly obviously home-biased) reporter from a local paper? Quote the reporter directly if you think it's that important, or find a quote from an actual member of the group that represents the same position. Franamax (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You gotta love this board. If you propose any text, people call it POV and demand you remain closer to the source. When you stay closer to the source, they call things which are clearly not copyright violations, copyright violations. And they do it in insultingly condescending tones.

But, let's address your concerns. Firstly, we are dealing only with a phrase. (please ready close paraphrasing). Secondly, we have different vocabulary and sentence structure (please see close paraphrasing). Finally, the materially fits in with the tone of the sentences and phrases around it. But in the spirit of friendly compromise, I will change this even more. If you still find it unacceptable, I would appreciate an actual constructive comment which proposes a specific fix which would meet your concerns.

In mid-2008, a group of friends, lawyers, writers and scienteists who believe that Knox is innocent formed an advocacy group named Friends of Amanda.[37][38] This group, which says that it is not affiliated with the Knox family and receives no funding from them,[39] believes that Mignini has demonized Knox in his obstinate pursuit of a case filled with holes.[40] The group's counsel, former prosecutor Anne Bremner, has criticised the conduct of the Italian authorities and the police, and the character assissination the media have directed at Knox.[41][42]LedRush (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So, any objections?LedRush (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ledrush. I don't think the sentence is accurate. Anne Bremner is a lawyer, but she is not technically "the group's counsel". When it's phrased like this, it implies that she works in her capacity as a lawyer for the group. In reality, she is a lawyer who happens to be part of the group. She doesn't represent them in any legal capacity. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC))

Some sources call her counsel, others spokesman. I don't really care which it is, but if you want the latter, you should get a source that says it (the current says counsel).LedRush (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos

"...maybe truejustice has the rights to an image or two that could be released under CC-BY or similar for use on Wikipedia".Fancourt (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have seen some of what is written in the archives here and also have been looking into public domain laws for Italy and Germany but not to a conclusive answer. So, are the mugshots obtainable in Italy? ...and same question for Germany as it applies to Guede? Also, do any of the participating editors here have any photos (of their own making) that they would be willing to upload?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you only looking for headshots of those involved (Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy)? BruceFisher (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am more then happy to assist with this, If you will advise me on what it is you need :)--Truth Mom (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I am looking for whatever we can get that would improve the article. :) I was thinking of the suspects first because mugshots are often (but not always) in the public domain so I thought that might be easiest...but I would think we would welcome other types of photos. The most important thing to Wikipedia is that we don't violate copyrights. If someone has their own photos, they can upload them to Commons. If you have other photo suggestions, just ask here to see if people think they are a good idea. Seeking out photos is a good way to improve the article. Italian speakers will be especially valuable here in looking through their government sites. German speakers may find Guede's mugshot (Germany has been very accommodating to Wikipedia). Shots of Mignini, the court entrance, etc.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos of the three suspects taken near the time of the murder would improve the article as would a photo of the cottage. There are some general photos of Perugia on Wikimedia, but I didn't see any good ones that looked appropriate for this article. Uploading your own photos is easiest. If the photo was taken by someone else, that person needs to sign a Wikimedia release form and that signed form should be uploaded at the same time as the image. Ask for advice on getting this right before doing the upload. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

To date I have never seen any mug shots of Amanda or Raffaele, but I have ran across the one of Rudy. There are quite a few Italian speakers that I am aware of, I will ask. What would they need to do? As for the form, I will see if I can manage to locate that. As for the uploading, I dunno about that :) I am attempting to learn it though :)--Truth Mom (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a rather steep learning curve for uploading images to the commons. Also, my earlier post was wrong about verifying that someone else gave permission. According to [43] that takes place vie email. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok that helps a ton Thank you kindly.So this is an area I can simply even contact various press entities and request that the photos they hold be released for use. I have been in contact previously with a few of them, so this may aid in an already established relationship.

As previously stated, I have never ran across any mugshots, except for the one of Rudy. I am also sure that all of these book writers and blogs, may as well have access to many photos. So will ask,is it only Mug Shots that are of interest?--Truth Mom (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two really good sources for photo's and either may be willing to allow use if a PTB here would ask.

http://www.daylife.com/search?q=Amanda+Knox

http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/s?qwe=amanda+knoxRoseMontague (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PTB = Part-Time Boozer? ...or Power that be?

I get a 404 on the first link...you must have an account, I'm guessing. The second link has great shots but I'm not sure they belong to them because they also have http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/s?fq[]=10200&qwe=amanda+knox (http://www.milestonemedia.it/editorial/s?fq[]=10200&qwe=amanda+knox) these of Hayden Panettiere from the movie in screenshots. If the Knox/Sollecito shots are truly theirs, they would be outstanding in the article....if they are willing to. Their terms seem to say no.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Candace Dempsey was in Italy, I am sure she took photos, maybe it is possible to askher if she would be willing to assist here? --Truth Mom (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A proposed addition to the media section

The media section now reads, in part:

A number of sources have argued that the pretrial publicity and tabloid-style coverage tainted the public perception of Knox and may have prejudiced the trial.[120][121] Unlike standard practice in some other countries, the professional judges and lay jurors who decide the verdicts in Italian court cases are not sequestered during the trial and are allowed to read news articles about the case. [3][122] The lawyers filed complaints with a Milan court and with Italy's privacy watchdog.[120]

I don't believe that the current text properly introduces the amount or nature of the press that Knox received immediately after her arrest through the time of the trial. This is important to note both because it speaks to the controversial nature of the case, and because, as is noted elsewhere, Italian jurors are encouraged to read the press before rendering a verdict.

Before the first sentence, I propose to add the following:

Much of the British and Italian media has portrayed Knox as a "manipulative femme fatale", and, according to Paul Harris at the Guardian, has engulfed Knox in a wave of negative press.[44]LedRush (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a comment (not on whether to include this or not) Much of the British and Italian media has portrayed Knox is a close paraphrase of the source, so it needs to be re-written. I've not actually read the media section up to this point, but what you quote looks like it is full of weasel words :S probably the whole thing needs a refresh --Errant ^(chat!) 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll take your comments one at a time.

1. I used the language I have because it is close to the original: whenever discussions revolve around the size of a criticism or the amount of coverage, there is deep disagreement about how to include the information. By staying close to the source, any such disagreement should be minimized. I don't think we get into a copyright/plagarism issue because the language is broad and common and there is really no other plain way to say this other than by doing things like inverting the subject and verb, or changing the verb from active to passive. Of course, I am willing to entertain improvements.

2. I assume your comment regarding weasel words only relates to the first quoted sentence. If I remember the discussion correctly (and I could be totally wrong), this was a compromise position on saying that a "number" of sources. Certain editors (I'll let you guess) thought that it should read "many", while others "some". We used only two citations, but found, many, many more (including the one I'm using hear, or just about any article on the formation of "Friends of Amanda"). A "number" gives the sense that it is more than a handful, but doesn't give the sense that it is either overwhelming ("many") or deminimus ("some"). Of course, if you have a better suggestion that doesn't run afowl of either of those concerns, I'd think everyone would be open to it.LedRush (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think NPOV is a real problem here. If we get into slating press coverage, we really ought to be describing the content of the press coverage, or else we are giving half a tale. I don't think these details are important to the article in themselves, but we can't just give a hearing to one side of that aspect of the story.

On more minor notes: "Much of the British and Italian media..." is opinion that should be attributed. "Unlike standard practice in some other countries..." is an unsourced assertion. --FormerIP (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Much of the British and Italian media..." is reported as fact in the citation. Regarding NPOV, I'm not sure I get your point. In a section on media coverage, should we not say what RSs say about the media coverage. If you can find a RS that says the media coverage is fair, or that it was slanted to pro-Knox in the US, we can use it. But there are lots of sources that talk about the bias of vilification of Knox by the Italian and British press, and we can't tell any of the story without making that clear.LedRush (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we get into a copyright/plagarism issue because the language is broad and common and there is really no other plain way to say this other than by doing things like inverting the subject and verb; unfortunately we can't do that. Our approach to copyright is pretty stringent and we invite the ire of copyvio editors (you thought this was stressful?? I jest :P). But seriously; changing a couple of words around isn't enough, even with the reasons you cite. If we really must use those words, make it a quote. On the other matter.. I dislike any form of "a number of", or "many observers" etc. without a source that specifically says that. But I meant the rest of the sentence as well; the whole article is littered with wording like that, which is not really encyclopeadic, I'll propose an alternative later. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about the rest of the media section elsewhere.LedRush (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of copyright, and we should avoid too many quotes. I can change it around, but I am sure this language will be endlessly debated unless we stay true to the source as I have.LedRush (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

New Proposal taking FormerIP's and Errants' comments into account.

According to Paul Harris at the Guardian, Knox has been engulfed in a wave of negative press as the British and Italian media have depicted her as a "manipulative femme fatale".[45]LedRush (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this information needs to be attributed, but make the concession to help find consensus.LedRush (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be better sourcing to cover this. The Observer (just incidentally, not the Guardian) source is an op-ed incorporating an interview with Friends of Amanda and so written from their perspective. It should be treated with caution per WP:OPINION.

The real problem isn't any particular source, though, its the generally slanted narrative. What we have is OTT claims of character assassination, the irrelevant and leading information that the jury was not sequestered, the entirely false suggestion that this is unusual by any standard, the information that a privacy complaint was filed, giving the misleading impression that this was something to do with "much" of the coverage in Britain and Italy.

An alternative, and equally sourceable, spin would be that certain publications such as the Mail and the News of the World (not representing a large proportion of overall coverage) printed some true but lurid and gossipy information about the private lives of the defendants, which wasn't relevant to their trials. Supporters of Knox have complained that the jury was not sequestered, although this is not standard practice in any Western country. Criticisms have also been made of American coverage of the case, which was characterised by hyperbolic and jingoistic criticism of the Italian system of justice.

The overall question is how to arrive at a neutral narrative which covers all of that to a degree that is not over-detailed but also does not cherry-pick. --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OTT claims of character assassination? Are you suggesting that Amanda Knox's character was not assassinated in the media following her arrest? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware that it was, I'm only aware that Knox's supporters have made this claim. --FormerIP (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the source, we could use this [46] (or others) for the same statement, though we don't need to. But let's get down to the crux of your argument.

I would like to see RSs state that only/mostly the Mail and the News of the World (and not a large proportion of coverage) provided the character assassination against knox. I doubt we'll find one, as it is clearly not true. Also, I'm not sure about any of your other statements as well...none seem true to me, and I doubt any can be sourced. But, I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Regarding the main thrust of your argument, I don't think the view is slanted. We have pro-conviction commentary with anti-conviction commentary. We get an extended diatribe by the father against knox. We have criticism from the american press, and criticism of the american press. The only thing that I thought was missing was an introduction to the statements regarding why we were talking about the importance of how the media coverage could have effected the trial.

Regarding being sequestered: I know we had this discussion before, but it seems the source has been lost. I'll try and find it, but this was discussed on the talk pages. In the US, for a murder trial of this size, juries would almost definitely be sequestered. However, I don't find that the most important information here. The issue is that in the US (and I believe most western countries) you are not allowed to conduct individual investigation about the facts, so you cannot be influenced by the media or other out-of-court info. I will find the source about what is normal, but I will stipulate in advance to changing the sentence to remove mention of sequestering and talk only about reading the news (outside investigations).LedRush (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The sequestered statement comes from this [47]. It seems that the current version of the article overplays its hand...we shouldn't say "some other countries" or "standard practice" but instead something like: Unlike in the US where potential jurors are screened for bias, "Italian jurors are not only free to hold preconceived opinions; they're also at liberty to follow the news of the trial as it unfolds, leaving them vulnerable to swings in popular sentiment". We can use the quote or incorporate it (I prefer incorporation).LedRush (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When using sources we need to take care over separating fact an opinion. Fact is that they are not screened and are not sequestered. Opinion is that this leaves "them vulnerable to swings in popular sentiment". Usually best to keep the two separate and correctly attribute opinion. Also, comparison to the US is usually not useful/appropriate - just say the facts of what they can/can't do. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree Actually, I only partially agree. I'd rather not talk about redoing the whole section, and only about my proposed addition.LedRush (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I usually counsel against combining pro/anti information to make something neutral :) Often there is a balance to be had. She's probably not been treated any worse in the media than others have been in the past, but her supporters have made a big fuss over it (understandable). So I would tend to formulate it as a paragraph saying a) the case was widely covered in the media, b) that Knox's supporters and other observers have raised issue over it, c) that they express concern it may influence the jury (but not talk about the jury being non-sequestered in the same section) and finish it with a reasonable quote from one of the observers (much like the one presented).... I prefer the telegraph source because it is reportage of the group, rather than opinion. maybe:

The case attracted intense media coverage in [list of countries?]. Knox's supporters and other journalists criticised her negative portrayal [in the tabloids?], saying that it might influence the trial. Anne Bremner, head of the "Friend of Amanda" support group, said "Amanda has been depicted as a she-devil, a temptress and a promiscuous manipulator and that’s not just not true, it’s also very damaging" It's not perfect, I can't source the "tabloids" bit, but it might be possible to. I am also unsure of the list of countries; but it should be relatively simple to find a source (or sources) to list some. We can deal with the jury not being sequestered somewhere else, no need to tie it with this --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

While I am generally ok with this approach, I have two comments (one to the writing and one to your statements). First, it seems incredibly relevant to state why the group feels that demonization in the Italian and British press can influence the jury. Second, and less importantly for this discussion, do you really believe that Knox hasn't gotten it worse than most others in the press? I can't even think of a case in which the press treated a defendant nearly as bad as Knox. I'm flabbergasted. In Europe is it normal for people to make outrageous and unsubtantiated comments about your sex life, to openly hyopothesize that a suspect is a sociopath based on almost no psychological evidence? I mean, you only have to look at how Guede and Sollecito were treated to see that Knox has it 10 times worse than the other people in the same trial. That statement truly confounds me, even though I know it's not central to your argument.LedRush (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My girlfriend reads the tabloids :) They can be very nasty, pretty much every day. So, no, I don't think she was singled out, she just got the usual titillating coverage (not that that what I think is overly relevant, but I was just trying to lightly suggest that we don't need to present it as fact that her coverage has been abnormal [or at least we need a solid source that says so]). It's not central to the argument, just an observation on the sources so far. it seems incredibly relevant to state why the group feels that demonization in the Italian and British press can influence the jury; I'd argue that this is communicated in what I wrote (about it influencing juries). It is not at all uncommon how Italy forms and treats juries, and we can present that factually in the initial material about the trial (I haven't organised my thoughts on how best to approach that). I argue that the extra detail you suggest is basically a longer way of saying what the proposed content already says. That the jury would see the media coverage is IMO basically common knowledge, so the "why" is somewhat redundant :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

How about: saying that it might influence the jurors (who are allowed to read media reports). - or a better version of that. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the coverage, perhaps this is my American bias, but I've never even heard of tabloids going after someone accused of a crime with such venom for such an extended period of time. And also, perhaps because I'm America, I was very surprised to learn that Italian jurors aren't screened for bias and can read news reports. (All jurors in the US are screened for bias, and none can read news reports, or even discuss the case with anyone else. Furthermore, if there is potentially prejudicial info in the media, they can be sequestered.) Your fix addresses that a bit, but I still see it as a soft sell on the issues. And now that you are tying my introductory language with a rewrite of the later info, I feel that we are taking one step forward and two steps back.LedRush (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This [48] article seems to indicate that my view of how jurors are expected to act in the US is similar as to the UK.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't forget that Knox is American, Kercher is British. So it seems reasonable the coverage should be this way round. To show a counter example.. the tabloid (and other) coverage of Julian Assange in the US has been pretty vitriolic (calls for his execution etc.). I think that the juror system in the trial is flawed could be pertinent, I am lary of tying it to the criticism by supporters though. My own preference would be to deal with it using sources from people qualified to comment on the legal system adequately. Especially the Italian legal system, which is more than a mess. And now that you are tying my introductory language with a rewrite of the later info; I can't really support your original proposed addition because it comes at the material from the wrong direction, plus Harris' opinion is only tangentially relevant compared to the head of the Friends of Amanda group (who he is writing about anyway). Perhaps expand it more: saying that the jurors (who are not sequestered and are allowed to read media reports) may have been influenced. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The parenthetic phrase there is too weasely. I would suggest that juries are almost never sequestered anywhere in the western world. We could arguably include this in the context of a quote from Friends of Amanda, but not in a way which suggests that Wikipedia finds the fact relevant. --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree actually, I think including it a quote risks over quoting the section and also makes it a bit stressing the point. They could be sequestered, it seems reasonable to explain they are not (and therefore the substance to the complaint). Reflecting on this I think LedRush has a point & my proposal is a reasonable compromise ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They could be sequestered. There are probably many things that could be. The fact that they were not is only potentially relevant in the context that someone has tried to build an argument around it. We should be informing the reader who this is, otherwise we have a random fact. --FormerIP (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that getting too close to a WP:COATRACK? Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, disagreed. That they are not sequestered is a fact, and contextualises the opinion held by the Knox supporters. I don't think it needs to be formally attributed in a quote. I could buy an argument to drop "and are allowed to read media reports" because that is potentially dodgy. I think it is seriously forcing the idea of fact/opinion to insist this, and there is no need to mash up a crap load of quotes (because that is pure COATRACK) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Is the argument that attributing something rather than saying it in WPs voice would amount to coatracking? It seems to me that the proposed formula is "person x said y and there is a good reason for this, z", whereas it should be "person x said y, giving the reason z". --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's basically using an article about X to comment about Y. Here, it's using this article to comment on the Italian judicial system in a negative manner. The crime didn't happen in the US, so US procedures aren't going to be followed. You will get commentary from people saying that they don't like the Italian system, but adding those to this article is pushing COATRACK a lot. Ravensfire (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush: You say above: "I've never even heard of tabloids going after someone accused of a crime with such venom for such an extended period of time". My question is: where have you heard about this? I think it is reasonably important to distinguish the arguments of a PR campaign from objective facts. It's a sourced fact that some people have characterised tabloid coverage in this way, but that doesn't make it objectively true (i.e. suitable for unattributed inclusion in the article or, more to the point, as a working assumption that should guide the attiudes of editors). Are there any examples of the type of coverage we are talking about? How prominent or regular was this type of coverage?

A similar thing applies in terms of the rules governing juries in Italy. All kinds of things might have been said by Knox's defenders, but they should not be taken unquestioningly. The claims in the Time article are simply wrong - it is poorly researched. Sequestration of juries is not normal in the US ([49]). Juries are also not routinely screened for bias in the US, only for eligibility to serve, although jurors may be challenged by way of a voir dire (see page 47 of this book: [50]). It is hard to imagine that there is no equivalent process in Italy, because it is always going to be necessary to remove jurors with a direct interest in a case. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Juries are always tested for bias in the US through voir dire. Also, they are sequestered in cases where media coverage can be prejudicial, as stated in your citation. Furthermore, no one is taking things said by Knox supporters without question. We are reporting on media reports of the trial and the coverage of the trial. And the idea that we should not explain the nature of the Italian system, especially as it is in direct contrast to the US and UK ones, from which most of our readers come, seems strange to me. Also, if you are accusing Time, CBS, the Telegraph, and other media outlets of bias regarding the nature of Italian and British media coverage, I hope you can provide some sources.LedRush (talk) 01:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay well I can basically agree about voir dire, although I don't think "always" is true - it's a question of whether the defence lawyers choose to challenge any jurors. This is the same as in the UK and probably essentially the same as in Italy. On sequestration, the source doesn't say "they are sequestered in cases where media coverage can be prejudicial", is says they can be, but that "sequestration has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore". Again, this is probably the same as in Italy. Can we at least agree that the Time article is in error.

Dependent on context, it may be appropriate to explain the Italian system so long as this is not coatracking and we have solid sourcing for our explanations (ie we are not just regurgitating someone's spin).

If "we are reporting on media reports of the trial and the coverage of the trial" then fair enough. My query was about where in these media reports and coverage it talks about "tabloids going after someone accused of a crime with ... venom for ... an extended period of time" or similar. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that in Italy they test for bias through voir dire, or at least Time and other outlets have reported that this is not so. And no, I don't agree that the Time article is in error. I don't know that the Slate is more knowledgeable than Time in this matter, and my own personal knowledge lends me to believe that my earlier statement is correct: juries are sequestered where media coverage can be prejudicial. That the Time article an the Slate article seem not to contradict this common knowledge confirms my view. I am not asking that any such views be entered into the article, merely a neutral representation of the article itself, as presented above. Also, in Italy it seems that you can research the case independently, which is also not the case in the US or the UK. I have never asked for my statement regarding the venom with which the tabloids have attacked Knox to be introduced into the article; that was a discussion I had with Errant. I asked for the material above, impeccably sourced, to be included.LedRush (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, your own personal knowledge or what seems to be the case is not what counts. We can't reproduce information which is contradicted by other sources and appears to be just bad journalism. If you don't want it to be entered into the article, would you support an edit request for its removal?

What I am saying about your "venom" comment, which is simply for you to reflect on, is that you do not know this to be the case, you are assuming that the claim's of Knox's defenders are correct. I would suggest that this is just PR spin that Marriott knew would be easy for Americans to buy. In reality, the UK tabloids printed some material from K & S's MySpace accounts about their personal lives. Whilst I would agree that none of this material is very important or should be taken to indicate their guilt, it is not surprising or unusual that it was printed. --FormerIP (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is getting sidetracked, no source has raised the issue of whether this is an unusual approach to juries (in general) or discussed it in any depth. The source that does do a comparison is "meh", not really worth including. However let's not get sidetracked from the content being discussed.

I find FormerIP's assessment unconvincing. Firstly I would like to get away from over quoting this; it is a very poor writing style and tends to lead to NPOV problems as we fail to clarify opinion and fact, and give advocates a soapbox to take control of how facts are portrayed. In fact, it is bad practice to continually attribute material in a "he said, she said" format, because (as I touched on above) you tend to portray both non-neutral sides, rather than portray a neutral off-hand description of the material.

Let's get back to basic principles here. We have three pieces of information to cover:

• Supporters criticise the media coverage
• Supporters claim that this may have influenced the jury
• Who were not sequestered in this case

Two of those things are opinion, one of them is a fact that contextualises the opinions. If they were sequestered would you not agree this would be pertinent information (indeed, why do I get the impression someone would be insisting it be presented as a fact... :))? So the fact they are not is just as relevant.

But lets be clear; the supporters do not appear to have mentioned (at least in the sources I read) anything about the Jury not being sequestered. Instead RS's are adding it, to inform the reader as to the context of the criticism. So from that perspective it is incorrect to attribute it as an opinion (remember, please deal in what the sources say).

Presentation of this fact has to be done carefully; we cannot present it as supporting the opinion (i.e. the source discussed above is inappropriate), only as something that informs the reader (which is why I want to avoid a sentence that uses "because").

Bottom line is.. the current paragraph is bad, and I think this:

The case attracted intense media coverage in Italy and the UK. Knox's supporters and other journalists criticised her negative portrayal in the tabloids, saying that jurors (who were not sequestered) may have been influenced. Anne Bremner, head of the "Friends of Amanda" support group, said "Amanda has been depicted as a she-devil, a temptress and a promiscuous manipulator and that’s not just not true, it’s also very damaging"

Is a major improvement in both writing and neutrality :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Four comments: 1. The first sentence is obviously, 100% true. But it has garnered intense coverage in the US as well, I'm not sure why that is left off (it's in the lede). 2. I would change "in the tabloids" to in the "British and Italian media". First off, this makes the sentence actually true (it wasn't merely the tabloids that negatively portrayed her). But it also follows the sources we are using. 3. I would change negatively to "negatively and inaccurately". It is supported by the sources, and has the benefit of being true. I think it is normal to depict a defendent accused of murder in a somewhat negative light, but the media should be accurate. They have not been. Even still using the word negatively soft sells the content of the criticism, but this POV is lessened by adding my language. 4. The sequestered part is not essential (though it is helpful), as I have argued above. The most important aspect is that the jurors can read the newspapers and conduct investigations outside of evidence presented in the courtroom, unlike in the US and the UK.LedRush (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's also objectively true to say that the tide of media opinion has turned and that no British newspapers are currently writing in support of the original verdict. I'm not sure about the Italian papers, but I know OGGI does not support guilt. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a particular source in mind for "inaccurately", LedRush. This doesn't seem to be supported by the Observer piece. --FormerIP (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If we add "innacurately" to negatively, that makes me uncomfortable because it is not a readily obvious fact. It is the reason I included the quote at the end (which identifies the opinion of supporters that the press coverage has been untrue) because I feel that it is the opinion that does need to be expressely quoted. #1 & #2 I agree with, no issues. r.e. #4 The most important aspect is that the jurors can read the newspapers and conduct investigations outside of evidence presented in the courtroom, unlike in the US and the UK I am uncertain we have a source that accurately covers this. Indeed I am unable to fill out the background on this, except I have found something in a legal text book which indicates this isn't entirely true. I find that whole aspect ill-defined and badly covered. If we were to go into depth on this then I'd like to see a source qualified to discuss the differences and highlight the concerns (for example; although UK/US jurors are banned from forming viewing evidence outside of the courtroom there is no practical reason why the influence would not be the same in those countries - the crucial point of fact is that the jury were not sequestered, so irrespective of any other rules, they could be exposed to media coverage). --Errant ^(chat!) 15:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a useful BBC source on the topic: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11823193 --Errant ^(chat!) 15:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This too, though a little old: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7879293.stm --Errant ^(chat!) 15:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[ECs]I've provided links for the UK and US above. The major source for the US is this Time article: "In the Italian justice system, it pays to play to the press. Most trials are presided over by professional magistrates, but some — like Knox's — also include a panel of jurors known as "citizen judges." Unlike in the U.S., where those deciding a case are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings, Italian jurors are not only free to hold preconceived opinions; they're also at liberty to follow the news of the trial as it unfolds, leaving them vulnerable to swings in popular sentiment." [51]LedRush (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to elaborate on my position, you don't need to be sequestered to not be able to see media coverage. In the US and the UK, you are not allowed to read the media coverage of the event, regardless of whether or not you are sequestered. Of course, if you are not sequestered, you don't have someone actually controlling what you do. However, there are many cases in the US where jurors are found to have read about the case and have been dismissed (or the verdicts thrown out). There was even a mistrial verdict thrown out because jurors claimed to look for information and guidance in the bible. {Later edit: perhaps I was thinking of this case [52]} In Italy, this is not the case at all. We don't need to explain how the US and the UK works, but we should explain how Italy works seeing as it is so dramatically different than what an average native speaker of English would expect.LedRush (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, the Time article is worse than junk. As discussed above, what it says about the US and Italian legal processes is contradicted by other sources. It isn't a reliable source for describing those processes. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time understanding your position here. Are you 1. Questioning that in the US you can't read media reports [53][54][55] and are screened for bias[56]? If so, please provide a source; 2.Questioning that in the UK you can't read media reports or conduct outside research[57][58]? If so, please provide a source. 3. Questioning that in the Italy you can read media reports or are not screened for bias? If so, please provide a source. I have sources for all three of these comments above.LedRush (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overly interested in whether you can conduct outside research in the UK or read media reports in the US, because I don't think those facts in themselves are relevant to the article.

What I'm saying is that the article linked to above in Time is not a reliable source for information about legal processes, because the claims it makes about legal process are contradicted by more authoritative sources. For example according to the article "in the U.S. ... those deciding a case are carefully screened for bias and sequestered during the proceedings". But this source [59] explains the jury selection process in the US, which includes screening for eligibility but not bias (voir dire is something separate and is not a screening process - Italy undoubtedly has something similar to this). This source [60] says "Sequestration (in the US) has fallen so far out of favor that judges rarely bother anymore".

So, although I don't know what the law is in Italy regarding juries and the media, the last person I would ask is the woman who wrote this badly-researched op-ed in Time. --FormerIP (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We are way over the line into OR here, but to clear this up; there are no jurors in this trial (my wording was wrong on that, bah). They are lay judges, which does mean, yes, they cannot be excused in the way jurors can be. However; it is possible to object to a specific lay judge and have them removed. They appear to be checked prior to appointment, similar to the UK/US. There is no sequestering but I think it is inaccurate to say that they are allowed to conduct outside investigations and to read/consider media reports. There appears to be no specific law restricting them (or, to be more specific, a law to prosecute them if they do so), but it seems a stretch to present it as if they are encouraged to do so. My secondary point, of course, is that just because the UK/US have laws to prosecute Jurors who do these things doesn't stop them from doing so :) Hence; the point is rather moot. Jurors and Judges might be influenced by the media, this is logical no matter the specific rules and laws involved, and in this case they are not sequestered. QED. Saying they are allowed to read and be influenced by the media seems to be POV to me. FormerIP's point is sound; the Time article is not a good source for this material --Errant ^(chat!) 17:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Might just be easiest to include a paragraph (maybe by the trial section) going over the Italian judicial system and how this trial was conducted (number of judges, burden level, etc), then highlight how that differs from the US or UK. Include a link to the main Italian judicial system article at a relevant point. We can't add judgements about the Italian system in general here - that's textbook WP:COATRACK, even if sourced. Judgements about THIS trial only are a different story. Ravensfire (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, FormerIP, your source is basically a primer on how to screen for bias, supporting all my claims. Thank you very much.

Secondly, all the sources I see say that there are jurors in this trial in addition to two judges. I don't know if Errant is having an issue with vocabulary, if the media has an issue with vocabulary, or if Errant is just mistaken.

Otherwise, I have no idea how this conversation has gone off the tracks as it has. I have proven conclusively that in the US you cannot conduct outside research and are screened for bias. I have proven that in the UK you are not allowed to read outside reports. I don't even what these statements in the article and I've been forced to prove them! The Time article is magically not reliable because one source could be interpreted to mean something different than one aspect of the Time article that I don't even want in this article. (by the way, ABCnews says the same thing about the Italian jury here [61] The simple point is this: if the Italian system works differently than our readers would expect (hence the reason I proved how the US and UK work), we should point this out. This new formulation is totally broken until this important fact is addressed.LedRush (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Umm, no I am right. The sources are wrong. Apparently we do actually have an article about the court Corte d'Assise. Ravensfire's idea is a good one. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations (even if the WP article seems to point to the very same semantic point I made, whatever). Can you now address the actual points I made?LedRush (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And, that WP article doesn't contain one working link so I couldn't check it, but it appears to back up the claims made by Time and ABC news about non-sequestering of jurors/lay judges. I say this not because I want to include any information about sequestering.LedRush (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

LedRush. The source I linked to above is not "a primer on how to screen for bias", it is a textbook on jury selection in the US. It explains fairly clearly that screening is one element in this overall process, which has nothing to do with bias. If you read pp 46-8, you should get some understanding of the difference between screening for a jury and challenging a juror. This is an important distinction to understand.

The ABC article doesn't seem to contain anything that has been disputed in this discussion. --FormerIP (talk)

Regarding your book, I don't know if you are trying to play some semantics game or are just playing dumb as a stall tactic, but it clearly indicates how you can screen for bias. It directly supports all the other RSs I have found which state that in the US lawyers screen jurors for bias. This is completely non-controversial and I consider the issue over until or unless you can provide any proof at all that this fundamental, and well-known right is not true.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The ABC article contains the following quote: "Knox's fate was decided by two Italian judges and six jurors who were not sequestered, screened for biases and could freely read media reports." It directly supports all the assertions I've made above, and all the other sources on this.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sequestering has never been under dispute in the above discussion, so don't see the relevance per se on that one. The pouint was to explain that the Italian system is no the same as the Jury system used in the UK/US. This is useful information that should be in the article. I don't think it needs to be in the part where supporters are criticising the media coverage (I have actually said this all along...) --Errant ^(chat!) 19:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Instead of the sequestering parenthetical, I have proposed a parenthetical that says that the lay judges/jurors in the Italian cases are not screened for bias and they can read the news. This is essential information when talking about criticisms of the media coverage made by journalists and supporters and it is information that I have proven is different from the US and UK systems.LedRush (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be stressed that these are not jurors as the term is used in the US system, but are lay judges that have a very different role in the entire judicial system. It's definitely something very different from most of the US. Well, it's also different from Louisiana law, but that's also a different system. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Should also add that this system is only used for certain serious crime. Murder and Terrorism are given as examples in the WP article. Attempted murder would not be tried under this system. Ravensfire (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment. This discussion is now very long and it seems that it has developed into multiple discussions about different things which I'm finding a bit confusing. One is whether the Time article is reliable, another is whether the "jurors" in the case should be described as something else, yet another is whether the article should incorporate an overview of the Italian legal process. There may be others. Any chance we could split some of those discussions off? --FormerIP (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusion regarding RS's

I am a bit confused on this. I would appreciate any and all clarification in regards to this issue. It has been declared within this article perimeter, that the Daily Mail is in fact a RS. I am curious how it becomes a RS, when in fact Dear Meredith's own father John Kercher, writes for this paper. As seen in the following link below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?authornamef=John%20Kercher It also is sourced that Mr. Kercher, in fact was notified by his close friends of this media about, Meredith's being the victim of this murder.

Would this in fact not make this RS a bias source to use? This is in fact the Victim , Dear Meredith's, father shown very close and involved in this source. I do not understand the validity of this in comparison to using the sources of others involved. The claims to my understanding for lack of their validity is they are considered Bias, as they are close to the case. Would this not be of mutual, conflict? ( Please note this is for personal clarification) Thank you kindly --Truth Mom (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be a freelancer who occasionally writes for them, that doesn't necessairly undermine it as a RS. Being reliable consists of three factors; the publisher, the author and the content. The Daily Mail (publisher) is reasonably reliable by virtue of having editorial control, although it has a tendency to be tabloid which means we usually advise caution. The articles (content) can range from reliable to venal, so that is a judgement made on a case by case basis. And, of course, the author is also dealt with in this way. The fact the John Kercher has written four times for the mail in the past does not make it an unreliable source --Errant ^(chat!) 16:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Mail is in general not a great source, so best to use others if available :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I very strongly agree that the Mail is in general not a great source, and would go even further: it should almost never be used for anything serious at all, particularly for anything that would be considered controversial, or anything that can be found in quality media or books from reputable publishers. There are rare cases in which I think the Mail may pass WP:RS but it would always need to be carefully justified. Do we have a particular example under consideration today?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to Thank you Errant, for your clarifying this for me, this is exactly what I was looking for in regards to this question. Mr. Wales Thank you as well for you opinion, I will take note of it. There is not one particular example right at this moment, but I needed the above clarified , as stated above for personal knowledge. Both of you were very respectful within your response and I appreciate that. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The mail is used as a sole-source for the following information: "She[Kercher] had two older brothers and an older sister," "Towards the end of November, the prosecution and defence began summing up their cases," and to source that Kercher's father wrote something in the Mail. I don't see any of this as problematic. As a side note, I think it would help our discussions if you stopped using "Dear Meredith," and instead used "the victim" or "Kercher." Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[[62]] --Truth Mom (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't really see any problems with any of the information that used the Daily Mail as a source, though I didn't conduct an exhaustive search. However, I have no earthly idea how not calling her "Dear Meredith" could help our discussions in any way. Is there a hidden insult in that term or something?LedRush (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic. Passions are already high enough. Hipocrite (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Again, this is the problem this article has with single-purpose accounts; they are too wrapped up in the emotions of the case to really contribute objectively. Note the comment in an earlier section where "CodyJoeBibby" mocks one of the other criminals for being disowned by his family. I find nothing of value in comments such as that. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages don't need to be encyclopedic. Also, I am not sure that Cody was mocking Guede, but merely pointing out that it is difficult to make the support sections for Sollecito and Guede as robust as that of Knox, based on both media coverage and actual support. If there is anything hidden about Cody's comments, I would guess (and this is just a guess) that he is hinting at this information informs as to who is guilty and who isn't. Of course, that in itself is not really useful for this discussion. But, this discussion isn't useful either...why don't you discuss the actual ideas instead of continually going after the editors?LedRush (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I went after editors - I merely asked someone to stop using emotive language. I think that's a reasonable request - the kind of thing that should be granted pro-forma - even if I'm being irrational. Don't you agree? Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I generally agree. Perhaps I was being too sensitive, but it seemed to me that you were unnecessarily needling TruthMom. I think it's best not to use emotive language, but didn't find her comments disruptive or distracting in the slightest. But your overall point is a good one. My comment on going after other editors was for Tarc, and I should have made that clearer. However, it is also an overall relevant comment, and a useful reminder for everyone, including me.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I move to strike the following lengthy sentence from the media coverage section of the article, sourced from the Daily Mail, as it adds no real information to the article and blames Amanda Knox for her 'fame' as though it's of her own volition. "On 2 December 2010, Kercher's journalist father, John, writing in the Daily Mail, condemned Knox's elevation to "celebrity" status as "utterly despicable," and that the "Foxy Knoxy" nickname, "trivialises the awfulness of her offence." He maintained that to the Kercher family, Knox is, "unequivocally culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been ­convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way."[118]"

Can't this be compressed to something more compact with the link for people to follow to the full Daily Mail article? It seems unnecessarily inflammatory to include this lengthy condemnation of Knox given the high degree of uncertainty about the verdict, and given the large amount of basic information, such as the prosecutions's primary witness being in prison, which is currently censored from this article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mail is undoubtedly reliable for the statements of writers in the Mail. Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem to be a little hypocritical to seek to expand on so much detail about Amanda Knox while at the same time seeking to compress detail about Meredith Kercher? I mean, we have editors trying to include opinion from partisan "Friends of..." support groups while attacking the opinion of the woman's father? What on earth is going on here? Tarc (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

But is it necessary to include this entire emotional condemmnation of Knox in a neutral article? What is it adding? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[EC]Tarc, I think the same question could be asked of you. I agree with Hipocrite that the views of the father are obviously relevant to a section about views of her supporters. However, it is currently in the "media coverage" section. Though this info doesn't really fit here, I do see it as a relevant statement and logical one to include.LedRush (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say some kind of statement shouldn't be there. I'm saying that this diatribe is way too much for a neutral article. Give a quick summary of the statement and a link to the full Daily Mail opinion piece. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the length: two sentences on their opinion on the death of their daughter seems reasonable. My only comment would be to remove the claim that they've avoided media attention. Perhaps that was true at the time of writing, but it clearly isn't when the father is out there writing for papers, and the family are holding press conferences.LedRush (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing in the quote I posted about avoiding media attention, although of course it's untrue that JK has avoided it recently. I'm talking about the sentences quoted in this Wiki article as follows: "On 2 December 2010, Kercher's journalist father, John, writing in the Daily Mail, condemned Knox's elevation to "celebrity" status as "utterly despicable," and that the "Foxy Knoxy" nickname, "trivialises the awfulness of her offence." He maintained that to the Kercher family, Knox is, "unequivocally culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been ­convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way."[118]"" Why do we need these inflammatory and in some ways untrue sentences quoted in full in the article? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Because we are talking about the media attention on the case, and the views of the different participants. My comment is about the sentence immediately prior to the ones you quote.LedRush (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible a new section on the family members views should be created? Or a subsection on the family member's media role? I think that John Kercher's article does not belong in media as it is. It was a very important article in explaining his own view. It isn't the view of the 'media' though. It would be the same if a quote from Knox's parents was included saying "our daughter is innocent". Of course they are going to say that and it isn't that relevant to media in general.Issymo (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That's sort of what I'm saying. While I respect JK's opinion, I think this long, angry and inflammatory statement by him does not help the article's neutrality. Can the statement be shortened and can it be moved to the new section suggested by Issymo. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Move PR firm from support section to media section

"Knox's family engaged the services of David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle-based public relations firm, to handle the public relations aspects of their campaign.[126] The family has spoken with a number of journalists and have appeared on several TV talk shows, such as the Oprah Winfrey Show on 23 February 2010."

I think the whole idea of hiring a PR firm is to manage the way Knox is represented to the media. It seems like it would make much more sense to move this line to the media section. Can we get support to do this?Issymo (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. The whole purpose of originally putting this in the support section was to give the wrong impression that the only support for Knox was from some hired PR firm. One of the many things wrong with this article which I hope we are going to fix. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving the PR firm information to the media section is the correct thing to do. This aspect of the case has been misrepresented by the media and others for far too long. Amanda's parents hired a firm to help them organize interviews with the media. The situation was very new to them so seeking help was not out of the ordinary. There was never a million dollar PR campaign as many suggested and there was no effort to manipulate the media. In this case the parents of a young woman who had been accused of a horrific crime wanted to voice their support for their child and they had every right to do so. The PR firm information does not pertain to the support that Amanda has received. Thousands of people actively support Amanda Knox with no help or encouragement from any PR Firm. Amanda's support has not been bought by the family, it is 100% voluntary. Sorry to be long winded but this topic has been so poorly handled by the media that I feel it warrants a full explanation. BruceFisher (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That some have criticised the "PR campaign" is likely to be pertinent (we can't judge anything about this ourselves) - in much the same way that the coverage of Knox in the media has been crticised by her supporters. It can definitely be dealt with better though. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. If claims are made to suggest that the firm hired by the Knox family did anything to manipulate the media then proof must be brought forward. They were hired to organize interviews and there is nothing to suggest any further involvement. BruceFisher (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably manipulation is too far. But certainly there has been criticism.. Quennell, for example, appears to have been reasonably vocal in that TLC show are you trying to censor this information! ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to say some have criticized the PR campaign, but Peter Quennell is pretty much a nobody as far as I can tell. Someone a little more noteworthy would make more sense. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC))

I don't think it would serve Wikipedia well to quote Peter Quennell. He runs a website that openly attacks Amanda Knox and her family. Many feel that his site, along with the discussion site that he participates in, qualify as hate sites. I am a little surprised that his name was mentioned here. I don't think Wikipedia should consider quoting anyone that runs an advocacy site on either side of this debate. I don't operate a hate site but I do operate an advocacy site and I would never expect to be quoted in the Wikipedia article and I would be shocked to see any quotes made by Peter Quennell. BruceFisher (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I see he is about on a par with many of the pro-Knox commentators, and he did appear in the documentary (which lends a lot of weight to my mind). But admitted he does have problems. That is just an example though, the first I could find to illustrate the point. There are more, I'm just throwing it out there for when you propose a rewrite/change --Errant ^(chat!) 23:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on Quennell. He is not important. I think we can both agree that quotes coming from those who run advocacy sites really have no purpose being added to the Wikipedia article. BruceFisher (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The question is really just whether TLC is a reliable source or not. If we want to exclude anything that comes from someone connected to a particular campaign then that would have to cut both ways and could exclude quite a lot of the people currently quoted in the article.

For the substance of the claim, there is also Barbie Nadeau: "Of the handful of American journalists in Perugia in late 2007 and early 2008, none got access to the Knox family without certain guarantees about positive coverage" (page 84 of her book). --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think each person needs to be looked at individually. I don't think anyone is quoted in the article that currently leads an advocacy group. Are you suggesting they should be? If you can come up with a good reason to add a quote from Peter Quennell then please post it. If you want to add the reference from Barbie's book then I would suggest adding "Barbie Nadeau believes" in front of the text because she never backed up her claim with proof. I would argue that Barbie has been part of the problem when it comes to reporting misinformation. This is completely off topic but if you would like a list detailing the campaign of misinformation that Barbie has led, I will be more than happy to provide it. Either way, her point does not show that the PR firm was working to manipulate the media. The family had every right to turn down interviews with those who might be confrontational. They did not wish to get into shouting matches, they simply wanted to voice their support for their daughter. This line of discussion seems to be getting off point and I am to blame for some of that. I should have known that someone would have taken the conversation off the road if I explained the controversy regarding the "PR firm." The bottom line is; the information regarding the PR firm should not be in the support section, but rather the media section. BruceFisher (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Attributing Nadeau's claim to her, rather than stating it as fact, will be appropriate, of course.

I have to admit I don't know what it was that Quennell said. My only point there is we don't exclude people simply because they have a known POV. Not being from the US, I also don't know what TLC is. But that's the main question, I think. If it is a show with a reasonable reputation for fact-checking, then its contents can be cited by WP. --FormerIP (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have admittedly not researched the points on which you commented there really is no need to discuss general Wikipedia policy regarding content from those with a POV at this time. If anyone ever suggests posting a quote from Peter Quennell maybe you could chime in to defend it. As far as this discussion goes, I think the point has been made that the PR firm information should be moved to the media section. Do you object to this move? BruceFisher (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, but I also insist on adding the quote from Nadeau. --FormerIP (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you propose an edit and see what others think. Please be aware that this type of edit opens the door for an awful lot of information coming from books on the subject. I would think that a statement like Barbie's would need to be supported by other sources but I don't make those decisions. BruceFisher (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Outdent: some unformed opinions If the TLC is The Learning Channel, it's probably a RS. If not, who knows. The Nadeau quote, attributed to her, seems reasonable to me. We have to present both sides, as long as they are reasonably represented in RSs. I've never heard of Quennel, but would want to see an actual quote in a RS before passing judgment about whether to include his views.LedRush (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we are reaching an agreement on moving the PR firm info. If everyone agrees on adding author opinion from the various Wikipedia approved books on the case, I see no issues with that. BruceFisher (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

If the Nadeau quote is allowed to go in without her having to provide any backup for her claim, then by the same rationale OGGI's claim about Nara's hearing needs to go in. It's the continuing exercise of double standards in this article which I find annoying. Don't bother to reply to my point as I'm sure Barbie's unsourced claim will be going in to the article whatever happens, just as OGGI's unsourced claim will be staying out. Respectfully, CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So with the current lock, do we need to keep commenting on all of these points until edits are allowed? If these topics archive, nothing will be accomplished. Do topics continue to archive during locks like this? BruceFisher (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's now Friday (in the UK, anyway). I'm not seeing any letup in filibustering, I'm afraid. If anything, it's intensified. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder - edit

"During the trials many witnesses were questioned in court about the murder and surrounding events."

This sentence seems very out of place and out of the blue, disconnected from the rest. Can we just go ahead and delete it please?Issymo (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be deleted. The sentence is also somewhat misleading. The current version of this section only includes information from phone records and initial witness interviews. These events and times were known before the first arrests were made on Nov. 6. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I originally reworded it from the wonderfully obtuse Many witnesses were questioned in court about the murder, and the following events were noted, but at the time felt it should just go outright :)

Really the whole section needs more cohesion --Errant ^(chat!) 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about this, so I will make the request.

In the "Events surrounding the murder" section remove the first sentence. "During the trials many witnesses were questioned in court about the murder and surrounding events."

--Footwarrior (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Another edit, in the line "Parting company with Sophie at 8:55 pm", this time is an estimate and should not say as FACT that they parted at 8:55 p.m. I would like to change this to say - around 8:55 p.m. Issymo (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm annoyed because I reviewed that source and rewrote a lot of the innacurate stuff in that section, but missed that. Indeed the source says "about 9pm" - and that is the time they say they were watching the film till. It then speculates she arrived home at 9:15 (which I don't think we need to worry about. So how about:

That evening Kercher dined with three other young English women at one of their homes, the four watched the movie The Notebook on DVD until about 9pm when Kercher said she was tired and wanted an early night. She borrowed a history book, saying it would be returned before 10 am the next day, and left to walk home with one of her friends. Parting company with the friend she walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat alone. According to early investigations and autopsy, Kercher died in the flat between 9–11 pm.

(comes with some grammar improvements & removing the name) Better? --Errant ^(chat!) 21:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They could not have watched the movie until 9:00 p.m. because Sophie Purton said she was already home in time to watch a 9:00 p.m tv show. Masseie Report pg. 37 - "she indicated that they had left the house at around 20:45 pm. She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." I would really appreciate a compromise on this one. It is important that it say around 8:55 p.m. There is CCTV footage of someone (belived by many to be MK) arriving home around 8:52-8:54 p.m. It is believed by many that her 8:56 p.m. call to her mother was hung up on because she was surprised by RG's presense. That would require that she was already home by 8:55 p.m. It is important for these reasons to leave the arrival time of MK more ambiguous and saying - around 8:55 p.m. accomplishes that. It would also be more accurate than using a specific time that is not actually known.Issymo (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for a compromise :) if you have a source that details this information, then we are good to go. It is important for these reasons to leave the arrival time of MK more ambiguous; no, it is important to be accurate to what is sourced. If the aim is to allow for what "some believe" then it is not a good start :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Errant, you miss my point. The time IS ambiguous and anything that lists an EXACT time as the article now has it listed assigns an exact time that in unknown. The article says they departed at 8:55 p.m, there is no way to assert that as true. The word - around - should be added because the exact time is not known. Issymo (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sophie Purton's part - "she indicated that they had left the house at around 20:45 pm. She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." Massei Pg 37. The person who would know the most is estimating herself. She does not have any definite times.Issymo (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mention the parking lot video in this section for a couple of reasons. First, the sources just say it's believed to be Meredith. Second, we don't really have a good time for this event. The parking lot camera is known to be off by about 10 minutes, but the prosecution and defense differ about in which direction it's off. To make matters even worse, the released video has the timestamp cropped out of the image. A couple of sources give the time as 8:43, but we don't know if the prosecution adjusted the time. The attempted phone call to Meredith's mother does have a precise time of 8:56 pm. The Massei report states that the call never connected to a cell tower. Some have speculated that this is when Meredith was attacked, but she may just have been in a bad spot for cell phones. In this article we should just report the call was attempted and didn't connect, it's not our job to speculate why. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Footwarrior, I'm not asking for any of that to be included. I'm asking that - at 8:55 p.m. be changed to - around 8:55 p.m. Issymo (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Issy, I'm not disagreeing with that... other than to say do you have a source you can provide right now to support it. Because the current source says "about 9pm" - so you can appreciate that it is not possible to use it to say "about 8:55pm" --Errant ^(chat!) 08:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Errant, I have a source in a paragraph above, from Massei Pg 37 about Sophie Purton's statement. "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm." Massei uses the word 'about', which would also be fine. Issymo (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Massei Report Page 328: "At 20.56 hours on 1.11.07, an attempted call was made towards the family number (‚home‛) at 441737553564 referable to Meredith Kercher’s mother." This call was interrupted. Meredith made no attempt to make the call again. This call was not witnessed by Sophie so its clear the call was made after Meredith and Sophie parted ways for the evening.We do not have exact times for anything (except phone calls). Just because an article states an exact time doesn't make it true. I guess we need to find other writers that wrote "around" instead of implying that they had pinpointed the exact times. BruceFisher (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Photos of refrigerator and sofa

I have a link to a cottage photo, showing the police letter-markers near the refrigerator and sofa, but I was hoping to get a photo which was published on a news website, such as BBC or CBS News or such. Meanwhile, to reduce fears that placing the "FRIG" on the diagram is a nefarious POV attempt to slant perceptions, view the photo linked here: Cottage-kitchen-entrance-photo. The trial documents mentioned that fruit juice was in the refrigerator, so it would not be wildly frantic "original research" to note the refrigerator was in the kitchen. I would like to have other photos, linked from news websites, to link as reference photos. However, meanwhile, this photo helps to dismiss unfounded accusations of POV-pushing in the details of the concept diagram. Obviously, the house-concept diagram must be displayed in the article because many people actually imagined there was not even a refrigerator in the house, at all, despite being mentioned in courtroom discussions. -Wikid77 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't that obvious to me. Do you know what "frig" means? --John (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that everybody proficient in English knows what it means, especially in this context.LedRush (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and accept that you know that "frig" means "wank". The question I have is why we would want to use a badly drawn graphic with an obscure sexual word on it. "Fridge" would be a better label.... --John (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Etymology ==> Frigidaire
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a rotating 3-D version of the diagram? That way we could see inside the fridge and label things like cheese. --FormerIP (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Yes! --John (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding that you , John, were working on creating a "Better" version, is that no longer an option? BTW, I have never heard the word frig, describe a "wank" either, in my world it is a "Wang". It is also a clear minor typo, as we call them a fridge. :) I as well used the title of the section to clarify, what the intent of the word was referring to. Thank you kindly for the proper word meaning. I also like to request that the Wine be labeled as well --Truth Mom (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I had no idea that 'Frig' means 'Wank'. That is definitely a good reason to change it to say fridge instead.Issymo (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure it was a typo, thus there was no reason for all of this really, and I am sure it can be fixed with a little edit..... Really was no reason for a fussing. --Truth Mom (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sure it was a typo, perhaps made my a non-native English speaker, and I am not imputing any bad motives. We will have to agree to differ on whether this, the amateurish quality of the image, and the disclaimers all over it, collectively affect the suitability of this image. Do you think it is at all suggestive that the new editors all think this image with all its imperfections is essential, while those of us who have been here a while think it is unsuitable? At least consider the possibility that we might be right, please. As to preparing a new version of the image, either Errant or I could do it. I started work on it a few days ago but I have been busy in real life and it is a non-trivial task to make a decent image. I wonder if Errant has made any progress? --John (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, no progress here, I've got a new product launch and a camping trip in the next week or so. So... minimal chance I'm afraid. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• No worries, I should get a chance at the weekend. --John (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all, Thank You........ :) OK now,I accept you would like to make the quality better, I understand you have a life, and I would hope that you would come up with a resolution to clarify this whole matter and make a diagram we ALL can be proud of. So instead of continued disagreements of it, lets just get a new one together and up and problem solved right? :)I am even willing to assist you in anyway possible, feel free to email me anytime. I have faith in you that you, :) Just don't forget the wine please :) --Truth Mom (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe as an admin, you can even simply go in and correct that little typo? :) --Truth Mom (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it appears that we have consensus that a floor plan belongs in the article. What are the objections to the current image? So far I have noted the refrigerator not labeled properly and the floor plan is narrowed. If the plan was not narrowed then the disclaimers would not be necessary. I don't think its productive to argue who is right and wrong. We have already gone down that road. Let's work together to get an image that we can all agree on. Are there anymore "amateurish" details that need to be corrected? It would seem to me that the points of debate could be quickly corrected on the current image. BruceFisher (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ReWrite - Support for Knox and Sollecito

Support sites for Knox and Sollecito with hundreds of members developed over the course of their arrest and trials and have called for their release due to wrongful conviction. Some sites being: Friends of Amanda Knox[63][64], Injustice in Perugia [65] [66][67], Raffaele Sollecito [68], Science Spheres [69], The Ridiculous Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito [70], View from Wilmington[71] and Ingiustizia a Perugia [72].

Notable supporters of Knox and Sollecito's innocence include: 25yr veteran FBI agent Steve Moore[73], Author Douglas Preston [74][75], P.I. Paul Ciolino[76], Peter Van Sant[77], FBI Profiler John E. Douglas[78], Donald Trump [79], John Q Kelley [80], Timothy Egan [81], Judy Bachrach[82], Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry [83], Mark Waterbury Ph.D.[84][85], Author Candace Dempsey[86], Lawyer Anne Bremner[87][88] and Judge Michael Heavy[89][90].

9 US Specialists in DNA Forensics Open Letter: On 19 November 2009 Elizabeth A. Johnson Ph.D. and Greg Hampikian, Ph.D. as well as 7 other US DNA experts signed an open letter outlining their concerns with the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence central in the case. The letter raised the possibility that the DNA evidence involved was introduced through contamination and concluded that the DNA test results "could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred". [91][92]

Senator Maria Cantwell's statement: 4 December 2009, the day the guilty verdict on Knox and Sollecito was announced, WA state Senator Maria Cantwell released a statement expressing her sadness at the verdict, saying that she had "serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted [the] trial". She added that "the prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty."[93] Issymo (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very good you have put a lot of great information in it. --Truth Mom (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very well written. BruceFisher (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks very fair to me. Any interested reader would find the links useful when making an assessment on the case. I believe that the DNA Forensics Open Letter was picked up by New Scientist Magazine and written about there. Surely a reliable source? NigelPScott (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Issymo. The first two paragraphs of your proposal contain no reliable sources. The second two look okay, but I am not sure they add much to what is already in the article. The link between the open letter and Friends of Amanda [94] should, of course, be mentioned. --FormerIP (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the link between the open letter and friends of amanda? Propose text please.LedRush (talk) 12:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that asserting that various websites are "The most notable," requires a source, as does listing "Notable supporters," especially when those "Notable supporters" lack Wikipedia biographies. In addition, I am strongly concerned about link-farming. Hipocrite (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us go back to the start of this. Is there consensus that there should be a section entitled "Support for Knox and Sollecito"? If there is, then the websites and individuals listed are the most notable in terms of knowledge, information and their analysis of the case and its shortcomings. There are other blogs that have much to say on the subject of innocence, like the oddly named, Church Discipline http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/ where the writer travels on a journey from believing in guilt, to believing in innocence tainted by unhelpful behaviour, to believing in outright innocence with belief that a manipulated and biased media was part of a railroad process. Be that as it may, the items suggested would probably be supported as being helpful by most knowledgeable supporters of Knox and Sollecito. Have a look at them and see. These sites illuminate the 'innocence' side of the controversy and we are agreed that there is a controversy aren't we? I would suggest that any editor is free to suggest other innocence sites (e.g. Church Discipline) if he or she believes that there are significant omissions. Of course, if there is a consensus that there should be no section entitled, "Support for Knox and Sollecito", we can discuss something else instead. NigelPScott (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute that these websites and individuals are the most notable. Could you cite reliable secondary sources for your assertion? Hipocrite (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I would love to hear your alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites and individuals. Pray, do tell, then we can all consider the options and reach a consensus. NigelPScott (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point Nigel. We need reliable sources that discuss or illustrate the notability of these websites and individuals, otherwise these is no material on which to base a discussion and reach a consensus. --FormerIP (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unable to cite reliable sources for my alternative list of the most notable pro-innocence websites, so I don't think it's relevant for me to disclose my list. Could you cite your reliable sources? Alternatively, we could exclude a list of people/websites. Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hipocrite is clearly being more confrontational and obstructionist than necessary, but he's also making a good point. Just because we all know that these guys are the ones that are most notable doesn't mean that it's sufficiently verifiable for our readers. I think there is a simple fix. Just cite news articles which quote these people and organizations (preferable, major media sites) and change "most notable" to "some notable supporters include".LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to a story done by ABC News that discusses Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia. [95] BruceFisher (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with FOA being mentioned in the article, and I think we have already agreed to do that. Injustice in Perugia, though, isn't really discussed in this article, it is just mentioned as hosting a video. We really need sources that show these websites to be noteworthy, not just confirming their existence. --FormerIP (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article mentions nothing about Injustice in Perugia hosting a video. The article discusses the active support provided by Friends of Amanda and Injustice in Perugia for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The article is discussing Injustice in Perugia as a group, not simply discussing the group's website. BruceFisher (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And a lot of these sources recently added don't instill a lot of confidence in me. I feel like a mention in Time or ABC news is prima facie evidence that they can be listed in the article. However, while the West Seattle Herald may be a RS, I don't think it carries the same weight. I think I would need more from such a reference (like an explicit statement that those people/groups are notable, or repeated mentions).LedRush (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am pressed for time but here are a few others discussing Injustice in Perugia. National Review [96], France 24 International News [97]. The independent made the mistake of stating that Injustice in Perugia was created by Steve Moore but they mentioned it non the less. [98]. The Injustice in Perugia website was also seen in the recent Lifetime documentary highlighting Steve Moore's analysis. It seems like the question is whether or not Injustice in Perugia is a notable support group for Amanda Knox. I think a few links would be sufficient to show notable support. With the Injustice in Perugia websites along with the cause page set up in support of Amanda and Raffaele, there are currently thousands of active supporters. We are here today taking another look at this article because members of Injustice in Perugia brought attention to current issues. I think that alone would show that Injustice in Perugia is significant. BruceFisher (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

These sources are being misrepresented. The National Review article simply name-drops your own book of the same name. France24 devotes once sentence to the group, followed by commentary on something one person says there. The Independent name-drops the site (incorrectly as you say) as it discusses Moore's opinion, there is no commentary or analysis of the site itself. Tarc (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I am going to step back let others voice their opinions. I am certainly not here to promote my website. Keep in mind that the discussion is about the group and not the website. I am only suggesting that Injustice in Perugia is clearly a significant support group for Amanda Knox. It honestly seems a little silly to me that anyone would suggest otherwise. BruceFisher (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added sources for the 'Notable Supporters'. I've also changed the wording in regards to the support sites to simply say - Some site being: - I've added RS for FOA and IIP. Since the wording has changed to say sites being, instead of notable sites, do the others sites even need secondary sources since it is self evident that they exist by clicking on their link? Wouldn't they be examples of common knowledge plain sight observations? Or could we use FOA as a source since all those support sites are listed there? Issymo (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Just listing sites without any notability is a violation of WP:LINKFARM - what are the conditions for inclusion on your list? FoA is not a reliable source for the notability of sites. Many of your links to "notable" supporters in no way confirms the notability of said supporters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the support sites being listed without secondary sources are not acceptable they can be removed. I don't know the rules on this and would appreciate others input on this please. FOA and IIP have sources and should be kept. I disagree that the sources given for the notable supporters are unacceptable. I see nothing wrong with them at all and believe they are perfectly acceptable. Issymo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's try it this way - what makes each and every one of your "notable supporters" notable? If it's just that they are supporters, is that notable? You've included such "notables" as a retired engineer and a local judge. Hipocrite (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

They are notable enough to mention here because they are notable enough to be mentioned in the RSs listed (for the ones listed in RSs, of course...the others should be deleted, per my comments above).

Are you suggesting that I expand the section to include individual quotes and descripions of how they are involved in the case? I can certainly do that. I had thought before that it would make the section too long. I don't understand why you question a Forensic Engineer and Judge's notability when the Telegraph and King 5 news found them worthy of space.Issymo (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to dispute the citations, let's discuss them here, rather than tagging the text, making discussion nearly impossible. Especially when the tags don't seem to relate to the things they are tagging. It seems like Hipocrite thinks the citations are doing something than what I see them as doing. I see the citations regarding the groups merely supporting the statement about the goal of such groups. Each clearly does this. However, the sources, if they come from RSs, also provide prima facie evidence that the group is notable...the sources don't say the group is notable. They indicate that the group is notable by covering their actions and statements. Of course, as I have said above, if the West SEattle Herald covers the group or individual, it does not carry the weight as Time, ABC, CBS or the Telegraph.LedRush (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Also, can the self-published site be enough to state what the opinion of that group is? I think so. So most of those tags should be removed as well.LedRush (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If sources merely mention the existance of a person in passing, or are from small-circulation local papers and are the only instance where someone was mentioned, they do not evidence strong notability - it appears to be using wikipedia as promotion for non-notable people and non-notable blogs. The "west seattle herald" has a circulation of about 10k - this is not a newspaper where one article about some engineer makes them notable enough to include in this article. Hipocrite (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Given that my attempts to fix the text are reverted on site, I oppose any inclusion of this unencylopedic linkfarm. Hipocrite (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not my proposal - my proposal is no change at all. That was my compromise. Please do not speak for me. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Settle down and try and be constructive, please. I was merely trying to make your edits more easily accessible so your proposed revisions, (the "compromise" if you want to be unnecessarily combative) could be discussed without ruining the other people's work (and making the conversations impossible to follow).LedRush (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed text attributed to me that I did not write. As above - if my changes to the proposal are reverted sight-unseen, I oppose any change to the article at all. Hipocrite (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is how to properly describe the support. Linking to a site, IS citing it. That isn't to say that including the sites is the best way to describe support.Perk10 (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

Obvious and transparent problems with the proposal

In addition to the tags that were somehow allowed to stick, there are more obvious and transparent problems with the proposal. This is not a full recounting of the many flaws, but all of these must be corrected.

1. The first sentence is ungrammatical. "Their" refers to the sites? K&S? Someone else?
2. The first sentence is POV - it places "due to wrongful conviction" in Wikipedia's mouth. It needs to be clear that "due to wrongful conviction" is the opinion of the sites, not a fact.
3. The following "notable" supporters are not notable - Steve Moore, Paul Ciolino, Judy Bachrach, Ron Hendry, Mark Waterbury, Anne Bremner, Judge Michael Heavy. There are two points to being a "notable supporter" - being a supporter, which is verifiable from the citations, and being "notable." Just because their support is noted, they are not, themselves, notable. If the word "notable" were removed, this might be acceptable, but then it's just a linkfarm.
4. The third parargraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persusuasive argument - bullet pointed.
5. The third paragraph states that the Bra Clasp and Kitchen Knife evidence was "central in the case." This is an opinion - whose opinion is it?
6. The fourth paragraph is not written like an encyclopedia - it is written like a persuasive argument - bullet pointed.

These must be fixed. Hipocrite (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

1. "Their" release refers to AK and RS. Whose release is it - AK an RS's release. I am not opposed to making the sentence clearer in some way. 2. Yes they have POVs, they are afterall support sites. In the context of saying there are support sites this should be acceptable. 3. "notable", I disagree that they are not notable. They clearly are. They have also made notable contributions to 'supporting' AK and RS as this section suggests. 4. The DNA experts say the bra clasp and knife are important evidence used against AK and RS. This is also well known and other sources can be found for that line if required. 5. I don't see anything wrong with paragraph's 3 and 4. Other editors should say how to make them more encyclopedic if needed.Issymo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm glad you're not opposed to clarifying the sentence. Since I'm not allowed to do so, please fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
2. it is not clear that the POV that the opinion about the conviction is merely the opinion of the activists, as opposed to a fact expressed by wikipedia. Please fix that.
3. If they were notable, there would be articles about them regarding things other than this case.
4. If it is the opinion of the experts that the claspe and knife were important to the case, this should be made clear. As you wrote it, it is stated as fact that the claspe and knife were central.
5. I am not permitted to rewrite your paragraphs, so I'll have to just oppose their inclusion in full.

Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly "their" refers Knox and Sollecito but that is an easy thing to fix if designations are better than a pronoun. The wording that includes "wrongful conviction" is reflexive to the sites' and supporters' opinion, though that intention and meaning of the phrase could be made more explicit. The word "notable" can be likened to the word "main", or "key". The bra clasp was the only physical evidence that put Sollecito at the scene of the crime, so it was central in that respect, indeed. The fourth paragraph needs to be reworked for grammatical purposes, but it seems to aim at merely quoting the senator.Perk10 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I'm not sure how the British use the word 'notable', but Websters says it means

'worthy of note or notice'. In the context of this case, The Kercher murder case the the subsequent trial of Knox/Sollecito, all those people indicated above qualify as 'notable' under a conservative definition of the word. Beyond the advocacy websites and self published books, each (or most) has been vetted by major news media and interviewed and/or quoted as an expert in their field as related to the case. These media companies include such respected names as CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, NY Times, Seattle PI, etc etc. They've also spoken live at the invitation of Seattle University, Media Dept. Their 'notability' is self-evident. What would make them 'notable' by your definition? Everyone cant be Lady Gaga.. Tjholme (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Notable can mean significant. So that the notable supporters can mean the main ones, notable amongst the supporters. Or it can mean persons who are in themselves notable, in general. Obviously, in terms of the latter meaning, Senator Cantwell is notable, experts could be called notable, even as Jimbo Wales suggested, a celebrity section noting Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump, even if it is clear that celebrities are individuals who are well known who were willing to stand up publicly to show support.Perk10 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Perk10

I think Perk10 is right here, at least how I have always seen it anyway. There are two sorts of people/groups here. The first are notable people who have come out in support. This would be people independently notable, not by being connected with the support groups or the family - i.e. celebrities, government officials etc. Usually we would include a few of the most significant supporters of this type supported by independent reliable sources. The other type of person/group are those that are identified as a significant and notable part of their support. This is a bit more difficult, because defining at what point and individual or group becomes significant is a tough editorial decision (and we must be careful to avoid OR). But the oft accepted practice is to find a independent reliable source that identifies the person/group as a supporter and specifically notes them as significant to the cause. This last part is the step that most usually gets forgotten. As a final note; by independent I mean a non-partisan, mainstream source. A source from one support group, for example, saying another is significant/notable etc. is not very solid :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that there are also some groups that support the convictions. This section should probably include mention of those groups. Maybe rename the section Support, and include a subsection for the various sides. It would be a pretty glaring absence not to mention both sides here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. There is some discussion above to do exactly that, specifically with regards to Kercher's father's statement, which don't seem to belong in the media section.LedRush (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with equal time for the opposition groups but, with due respect, I’m not sure that they are notable for anything beyond spewing grief and misinformation, and I can’t think of even one that’s notable on an individual level.. Peggy Ganong, out of West Seattle, DID get a couple local media interviews I guess.. It would, however, be beyond charitable to call her notable.. and Peter Quennell is kind of an enigmatic finance man.. They don’t seem to do awareness raising events or public protests.. For the most part just ad hom attack from behind the mask of internet anonymity. There just isn’t the same sort of support from reputable public personalities stepping up and putting their own good names on the line to fight a perceived injustice.. But some sort of the mention of the 'Guilters' does seem fair.Tjholme (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we use the same criteria for both groups: if they are commented upon in large media outlets (CNN, ABC, Telegraph, Time, etc.), that is prima facie evidence that they are notable. If they are mentioned in less notable RSs (West Seattle Herald), we might need more explicit statements of notability, or evidence of continued references to the group. And we don't give equal weight to both groups...we merely reflect what the RSs have determined (through the process I describe above) are notable. If that's 20 that support Kercher and 2 for Knox and Sollecito, then so be it.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The investigation of the murder of Meredith Kercher

I am wondering if anyone has charted out in this Wikipedia Article on Meredith's Murder, a chronological order of the investigation of the murder. One thing that brought this to mind is when I heard (recently) Paul Ciolino speak at a forum. He spoke of how he went to Perugia very shortly after the crime occured. Being an investigator, he began doing what investigators do: knocking door to door to see who had heard or seen what. He spoke of a 4 story apt. building right across the way from the cottage. While there he found and spoke with the niece of one of the star witnesses. She told him that the old lady was harmless, but mentally ill. What he found out is that NO ONE had ever gone knocking door to door to find out anything at all. This, obviously, was astonishing to him. I don't care what country you're in, this is basic Investigating and it was shocking to myself as well. Why they didn't do this is a question I have no answer for. I can only guess that basic things like this did not happen because a week after the murder occured "We knew she was guilty from the fact that she was eating pizza with her boyfriend instead of laying in bed crying". So, is anyone (in their spare time) up for finding the exact chronological order of this botched investigation. What is Perugia's procedure's? Maybe instead we should see if Wikipedia would be willing to start a "The Railroading of Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito" page. Definitely there needs to be a page on "Giuliano Mignini" as well. In the meantime I'm going to begin looking into finding procedures of investigating crime in the quaint little town of Perugia, Italy. Michellesings (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about looking into the chronology of events, there has been some discussion about whether that is the best approach, or merely telling people all we know about the events in the most NPOV possible is the best. I actually prefer the latter, as some events and statement may look one way at the beginning, and seem completely different in light of everything we learn. If you're talking about retracing all the activities of the investigation in order to point out the deficencies, that seems like POV original research. If there are published (in reliable sources) criticisms of the process of the investigation, they should probably be worked into the article in the appropriate area. I somehow doubt, though, we'll get enough reliable sources to track the entire investigation.LedRush (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Misleading/incorrect Intro

"Intro Section" It says 3 convicted and 2 have appealed. Giving the impression that Guede has not appealed which is incorrect and very misleading.

"People charged with the murder"

Why is there 3 times more about Guede than the others? Also mentions arrest DNA etc which is not mentined for the others. The word "murder" appears 4 times as often in his section.

If this info is to be kept then it should mention in the Knox section that her parents were divorced, and that she was athletic and enjoyed football and climbing and did have a criminal record and was a drug user. And then give the reason for her arrest etc. There has been a demand for a page about Knox alone so what is all the information about her that people think is so important to add?

Kwenchin (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome user:Kwenchin. Always nice to see new people here. There are numerous things in this article that need corrected. Please propose specific changes you'd like to make (i.e. replace this with that)so we can discuss them and perhaps even come to consensus. Do include WP:RS citations for your material.. We dont want to mislead people with much of the baseless crap that flows around the internet.. To respond to points, I would agree that it should be pointed out that Guede HAS been convicted in both his initial trial and two appeals. The fact that he is the only fully convicted murder among the three may account for why he's more often referred to as a murderer. As for Knox. Divorced parents, ok.. Athletic, ok.. Criminal record.. hmm .. Please provide a WP:RS citation.. I'm not sure about Britain but in the US and infraction ticket for a noisy party isnt a criminal record.. drug user.. I would lean more toward pot smoker.. 'drug user' sounds so overly dramatic like 'meth addict' or something.. With half the country on prescription Xanax and anti-depressants I think we need to be a bit more specific as to drug use. All in all I wouldnt recommend an 'Amanda Knox' article but rather a "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffeale Sollecito" article to present the prosecution and defense cases more accurately. Regards Tjholme (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)