Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Change to lead

I have to agree with Grebe39 above. We need to be specific in the lead about what the controversy is to accurately summarize the article. It's absurd that up until now the article hasn't mentioned that there is a group of people who consider Knox and Sollecito to be innocent. Vague mentions of controversy and saying the conviction was appealed doesn't get to the point that is the whole reason for most of the news coverage. I think it's clear that some editors on this article are so caught up in their own personal views that they do not get that Wikipedia needs to reflect the real world coverage and expert views while summarizing the facts. I think the lead could probably stand to include something directly stating that the forensic evidence is disputed by multiple sources, as that is what the thrust of coverage has been about.

As far as the actual sources I cited in the lead, feel free to add more and better examples. Certainly there's no end of cites to choose from discussing the news coverage and the two views of the verdicts. DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Think your version is okay, except "The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature". This doesn't appear to be supported by the source which just mentions "the delight of the European tabloid press" . --FormerIP (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We have many, many specific citations to controversy, and many citations to what aspects are controversial. This reflects how the article is currently constituted.LedRush (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In the middle of October when Amanda and Raffaele are back home with their families, I wonder if some will still come here and argue that there was no controversy. BruceFisher (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably depends on October of which year they get home. Ravensfire (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously since I've been arguing this very point since the first time I read the article, I think the language of DreamGuy and FormerIP is a thousand times better. The fact that some people are so wedded to the previous wording to me is prima faciae evidence that it was not NPOV. Brmull (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In general I prefer Brmull's version, but I think it needs to spell out a bit more about the nature beyond "miscarriage of justice". At a minimum, it needs to mention the problems that have been raised about the investigation and the forensic work. I do like the mention of Guede as it highlights the extreme focus on two of the three defendants from early on. Ravensfire (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly there are countless versions that would satisfy me. What I cannot accept is editors who refuse to negotiate at all. If that continues to be the case I will be requesting the arbitration committee take a look at those editors. Brmull (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making veiled threats and accusations. If you'd like to bring up my conduct to any body, please do. Until you excercise more care in your edits and ideas and begin to work with an understanding that others have different ideas than you, you'll have a hard time on Wikipedia, especially on a contentious article like this one.LedRush (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am not following the discussion (and it looks like people are referring to old fights or something, whatever), but it looks like nobody here as any problem with my edit in general (except in specific, and even there the one part that was raised as problematic has been supported by more than one editor - there are lots of cites about the tabloid coverage complaints, they were in the article the whole time and the lead is supposed to summarize the article). So I do not understand the revert back to a version nobody seems to like. Instead of just generically saying it's been called controversial (weasel words at best, clearly it's controversial, or else nobody would even be talking about it) we need to say WHY so people reading the lead get that lots of people think 2 of the 3 defendants are innocent. Hell, the prosecutors this week even said they think Knox and Sollecito will be let free, and Wikipedia still seems to be reluctant to mention with any concrete language the entire reason this has been in the news for last several years. DreamGuy (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted again. Your proposal, to my knowledge, has not been listed here. You've had a couple of people find specific issues with it and a couple people generally in favor of the language. The old language was the result of much compromise and is clearly sourced. Of course, consensus can change. I'd just like to keep the old consensus intact before making the change. Would you mind putting your proposed text here to discuss it in detail?

On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current. I am surprised because, by your comments above, it seems like you think the opposite is true...is that right?LedRush (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it DreamGuy's edit including FormerIP's ce is not only an acceptable but also article improving edit. I think the original was ok but the recent change (before revertions) is a better choice to introduce the controversial to the lead.TMCk (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I too prefer the newer version, as more direct and succinct. Rothorpe (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The trials have been the subject of news reports around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States. The coverage has been criticised as being largely tabloid in nature. Reactions to the case are polarized between the view that Knox and Sollecito are innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice and the view that Knox and Sollecito were directly involved in Kercher's murder and convicted fairly. The conviction of Rudy Guede has not generated similar controversy.

The above is DreamGuy's edit. I took out the cites since statements in the lede should be supported by cites in the body. Brmull (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good summary to me, I like it. Ravensfire (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding cites in the lead, while ideally the lead should not have or require cites because they should all be in the body, frequently on controversial articles people will challenge sentences they do not like unless they are sourced and ignore that they are very well sourced later in the article. We have had this happen here, with people claiming there was no citation proving controversy or no citation saying people criticized the news coverage as tabloid, or what have you. Simply to silence those people and prevent edit warring it makes sense to leave the cites in the lead. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Soft-sells the controversy

I'm breaking this down into a subsection since this seems to be the only major point of contention, and I admit I am puzzled by it. "On your reasoning, to me, the new language soft-sells the controversy and doesn't represent the views of the article as well as the current." I am certainly not in favor of downplaying the controversy. I think the controversy needs to be made explicit to accurately cover this material for the article in a fair and complete way. I don't think, however, that simply saying it's controversial without saying why helps at all. It's empty verbiage. We should not simply throw a label of controversial on it (especially as some seem to want to dispute it), we need to say what the controversial parts are, so readers know and can see and judge for themselves. It looks like people from both sides of the controversy support this new wording. I think that's because it simply states the facts. If both sides agree to it, then it's a better point to progress from to improve upon through discussion and editing.

What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed so as to not, in your view, soft-sell the controversy? I think the new wording succinctly covers the major points. The only potential difference that I can see if that the new version doesn't mention controversy over the police conduct directly. I think that is kind of wrapped up in the miscarriage of justice idea. Perhaps some wording can be added to bring it back. Maybe a mention of the highly disputed forensics is necessary, but that wasn't in the old version either. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the nice things about the new version is it doesn't try to pick which controversies are notable. Let's try not to go back down that rabbit hole. Brmull (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't much of a rabbit hole. All the lead does is summarize things already in the article. We devote much time in the article to each of the categories of controversy so it should be relatively uncontroversial to keep the current categories. Also, I don't know that anyone is disputing that the case has been controversial, especially not after we pulled out over a dozen RSs which call it so and the other sources which point to specific aspects of the case being controversial.

I think the existing language already does what you (DreamGuy) say you want to do. It mentions the controversy and brings up specific areas of question. The new language seems to focus on the reactions of pro-guilt and pro-innocence people, rather than the coverage of the controversy as depicted in RSs. Perhaps we can insert the why people think there has been a miscarriage of justice (the aspects of the case we currently discuss), but that changes the meaning of the lead slightly, doesn't it?LedRush (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference "When a friend arrived at Sollecito's flat around 8:40 pm, Knox answered the door.[26]" does not support the statement. It (the statement) is therefore false and please be deleted (unless supported by other references). chami 15:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)

Time of Death based on Stomach Contents to be Part of Appeal

I recommended a few weeks ago adding the fact to the appeals section that the defense will be arguing an earlier time of death based on the stomach contents. Briefly, since there was no transit of stomach contents from the stomach, and since the outer limit of time to emptying in normal circumstances is 3 hours, and since the last meal was at 6 or 6:30, that the defense was arguing a time of death of before 10 pm. At the time the only source was the primary appeal document from the attorneys of Sollecito. There is now a news source reporting this here. Dougbremner (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

So now we wait and let them present this in court and let other sources report it. Since we are not the news, this report has no bearing on the article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of your "we are not the news" statement? Your link went to something about "soft redirects". Please tell me why the following should not be added to the appeal section: "The Knox and Sollecito defense team have added to their appeal that they will argue for a time of death of the victim of before 10 pm based on the forensic evidence. Secondary news source link is here. Dougbremner (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, someone has recently re-routed the WP:NOTNEWS link. The link to follow is now WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. While on the same page, it may also be worthy to take note of WP:CRYSTAL which also applies here. Instead of announcing things that are (likely) going to happen, we wait for them to occur and then depending on its impact and significance, we may give proper treatment within the article. Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper and we steer away from blow-by-blow accounts. We need to let things proceed and see what comes of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sollecito lawyer Maori presented it in court today and it was reported in the Umbria papers here. Dougbremner (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some food for thought about the media coverage

This interesting article talks of the media coverage of the trial, especially of the shift in the British Tabloids to a more "pro-innocence" stance. This could be useful in several aspects of the article.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/09/22/news/amanda-knox-long-strange-trip-may-begin-end-tonig

Actually, as the final arguments begin, the quality of the reporting, and good overall summaries of the trials, are popping up.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As it stands the "Media Coverage" section is five paragraphs of how horribly Knox was treated by the media, so any acknowledgement that there was a shift to a more pro-defence POV would be an improvement. However the suggestion that this change occurred recently, rather than years ago is the opinion of Steve Shay, not a statement of fact. Brmull (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

And in addition to the dozens of articles calling the case controversial, we see that the case is called controversial even when the media isn't talking about the case. http://travel.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/travel/36-hours-in-perugia-italy.html I think it's almost time to officially change the name of the trial to the "Controversial Trial of...".LedRush (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"The controversial murder trial of the American Amanda Knox" is not the same as "The case is controversial". The case encompasses many additional things, including the conviction of Rudy Guede, which is so far not controversial (although that may change if Knox and Sollecito are acquitted). Brmull (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually it should be "the murder trial of the controversial american amanda..."- the adjective should be close to the noun it qualifies. OR, something like "the trial of the controversial american amanda ... for the murder of the meredith ..." should be clearer. I presume that all the controversy is with the american... and this is uncontroversial. Also the controversy exists only in the media (should be clearly mentioned) and the judicial process is free from controversy.

chami 15:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck.mitra (talk • contribs)  

What you wrote makes absolutely no sense to me.LedRush (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The conviction of Guede is uncontroversial, but it adds extra controversy to the case as a whole that the person with clear DNA linking him to the crime (etc. etc.) got a lighter sentence than the people a lot of outside commentators say should have been released as soon as Guede was linked to it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is called "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and not "Meredith Kercher murder case" because there is more than one trial. If we were to use the phrase in question it would be appropriate to say "the cases are controversial". But, as several people have pointed out, the phrase is so vague as to be meaningless, and any attempt to narrow it would necessarily be inadequate. The current wording is much better, although "divergent" might be more encyclopedic than "polarized." Brmull (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone has made the argument that the term controversial as used in the context of describing wither the Knox trials or the other trials is vague, I've missed it. It's also pretty silly. It is quite precise in its meaning. Furthermore, the old language made it even more precise when we went into specific aspects of the case which were controversial. It seems disingenuous to delete statements which make a sentence more precise, and then call the result vague.LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article [1] has a good summary of how the case is perceived in the US. "The American student has won sympathy from many in the United States, where she is widely seen as an innocent abroad who fell into the clutches of an unfair justice system."LedRush (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is also good regarding the media coverage [2] "Bongiorno noted that the prosecutors have tried to counter press reports that have highlighted problems with the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito and the growing sympathy in the Italian media for the defendants. Bongiorno called the media the prosecution's "boomerang," since press reports during the 2007 investigation and the 2009 trial were so negative towards Knox and Sollecito." Of course, references to the first sentence and the characterization of the "boomerang" would all be directly attributed to Bongiorno.LedRush (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You changed "medieval" to "unfair"! The original is funnier. Anyway the first clause is okay, but the second clause has that troublesome opinion-word "widely" again. Nadeau said today that when she asks Americans about Amanda Knox, the most common response is "Who?" The ABC News quote is okay as long as it's all attributed to Bongiorno. But can we have some balance? Mignini said he'd never in his career heard of a TV network flying in supporters in exchange for interviews. Ghirlanda owns Corriere and his relationship with Knox and her friend Madison is well documented. Nadeau and others have extensively reported David Marriott's attempts to control the media message. One media outlet even printed an email from IIP offering to arrange an interview with Dr Hampikian. Is none of this stuff notable? Brmull (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My "clauses" are direct quotes from the articles: pure copy and paste jobs. Judging by your first comment, one article may have changed (a problem with non-print stories). Anyway, other information would be acceptable if notable. I think Mignini's comments in the closing may be warranted, with Bongiorno's response as above (seeing as they both talk about the media coverage). The piece below is truly staggering. I'm sure our British friends won't like it, but if you read until the end you can tell the author at least did some research and investigation. It supports that Guede was known to use knives (in crimes) and to engage in activities similar to those he engaged on the night of the murder (no, those activities don't include murder). I've heard it before, but to see it in Time like this really hits home.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet another article. This one is odd as the CBS correspondent calls the case against Knox a "farce" [3]LedRush (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking informally, in most countries when there's a highly publicized story of one or more tourist/s getting accused in "a vacation country" - a part of the world seen as picturesque but not up to the home country of tourist and reporters in judicial or economic standards - accused of a really grave and violent crime such as rape or murder, the popular media will strongly tend to side with "our kids" against the "medieval justice system" or inept/corrupt police of said backpacker country. That kind of slant is a reflex with those who sell the story at home (and in the international arena, plus sometimes including upmarket, highly serious newspapers), not just with US tabloid media, and the reporting tends to make eyes at the police work or judicial competence of those southern hobbits. How dare they accuse one of ours of such a foul felony!

That kind of dynamic is plainly visible in many stories of this kind and it could be discerned in the Maddie McCann story too, although that one never led to a really sustained court case. The media, semi-scripted by the McCann couple, insinuated that the Portuguese police were incompetent or ill-natured and the McCanns, at the same time, used the hubbub around the case to avoid cooperating with the police. Like the Knox family, they had good media connections and the Knoxes clearly have huge resources to throw behind the campaigning in the media. Having said that,. I agree "widely" in the quote is a weasel word and the perception of this murder story in the U.S. no doubt varies a great deal depending on what kind of people you'd ask.Strausszek (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have requested comment on RS/N regarding "The Neverending Nightmare of Amanda Knox"

Discuss here. I have concerns that this semi-fictionalized account is a sole source for several dubious statements in the article. Brmull (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Vision Thing

I don't know why ABC News has decided to refer to Knox's implication of Lumumba as a "vision". Previously this is something that only Knox supporters did. It is false: the actual signed statements are available online in Italian (here and here) and English (here and here). Neither the word "vision" nor its Italian equivalents are mentioned anywhere. In any case, this is all ABC News claims:

During the nearly 50 hours of her interrogation, Knox implicated Lumumba in Kercher's death, telling police she had a "vision" that Lumumba was present. Knox tried to retract her statement in the morning, saying the police had confused her with their extended grilling and tough tactics and their insistence that Lumumba was involved because they found a text message Knox had sent to Lumumba hours before Kercher was killed. Italy's Supreme Court threw out her "vision" statement.

The MoMK article was incorrect in saying that Knox signed a statement in Italian that she had a vision. This is why I reverted it to the previous version. Brmull (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let's make the reference about what she said and not about what she signed.LedRush (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, we listen to reliable secondary sources more than primary sources for several reasons. Your original research to disprove the statements of a RS aren't overly convincing to me with regards to the core issue: Knox has maintained that she told the police about a vision she had when they asked her to imagine what happened. Presenting only one side of this story seems like a NPOV issue.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, primary sources are perfectly acceptable for statements of fact. Otherwise large chunks of this article would go out the window because it's based on the Micheli and Massei reports--and I assume eventually the Hellman report. In any case, Knox's statements are reprinted in secondary RS if that remains a sticking point. None of this is "original research" it's just good research. If you think it's important to say that Knox has maintained that she had a vision, and you have a source for that, I have no problem--as long as Knox's police statement is also quoted to show exactly what she signed.Brmull (talk) 09:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

For statement's of fact, yes. But seeing as there are divergent views on what was said, this situation doesn't seem to fit, does it. Regardless, you seem to accept the use of the source now, as long as it is not used to the exclusion of the existing language.LedRush (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yet another source saying Knox merely told police she had a "vision" of Lumumba. [4]LedRush (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see rye bread popping up more in the media.[5]LedRush (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No need to bring self-described know-nothing Katie Crouch into this. The bread theory is worthy of a mention however, versus the prosecution's suggestion that it might be from powdered gloves. If the article is reorganized it might not be a bad idea to give the knife its own subsection, as it's probably the most controversial piece of evidence. Brmull (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Source on media portrayals in the US, UK, and Italy

I found:

• Burleigh, Nina. "Why There Will Always Be Three Amanda Knoxes." TIME. Friday 30 September 2011.

It talks about the differences in portrayals in the media in the US, Italy, and the UK WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate article for Amanda Knox if set free

I think we should atleast seriously consider a separate Amanda Knox article if she is set free on Monday after the appeal verdict. Which is likely to have that particular outcome as it seems. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As WP:BEINGSETFREE is not a valid criteria for an article, no, such a thing will not be happening just because her prisoner status may change. Recall that Casey Anthony is still, and will remain, a redirect. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. WP:CRIME means we should actually be more cautious, not less, in the event that Knox gets her freedom. "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". For now, though, this is very much a hypothetical question. --FormerIP (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I see your points, even if/when Knox is acquitted their will be appeals from which ever side "wins" tomorrow.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer is yes--eventually. But given the legal considerations, what would this article contain that would be useful and NPOV? Brmull (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No use getting bogged down in this now, but if you read the policy on one event, it seems pretty clear to me that she should already have her own article, just like the dozens of others in similar situations. The question is whether certain editors here will put aside their personal opinions and follow the policy and precedents of Wikipedia.

Of course, I know that several editors on this article have said that an acquittal would change their opinion. While I don't think there's a policy argument to be made there, an acquittal just strengthens the two factors that already make wp:oneevent not applicable - it strengthens the borderline argument that she isn't notable for one event and it reinforces the undeniable fact that she isn't a low-profile individual.LedRush (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, with all the articles popping up about Mignini [6], it may be time for an article on him, too[7].LedRush (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Plus Giulia Bongiorno already has an article in Italian WP that could be easily ported over. Brmull (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic. One event says "if the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate". And the example given of a highly significant event is the assassination of a political leader (ie a notable person). Murder of a non-notable person doesn't strike me as being in the same area. Secondly an acquittal does not make her notable for more than one event - it's still the same event; the trial is not separate from the murder. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed my point of view. I think Amanda Knox should have her separate article. She has reached notability way beyond any of the notability criterias. Thats it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

CHANGE OF ARTICLE NAME NECESSARY

The name of this article is not correct, as any honest person knows that this whole case surrounded AMANDA KNOX, and her trial for murder and sexual assault. Amanda Knox's name should be in the article name, period. This is not even really debatable, even if she wasn't acquitted. But especially now that she has been. "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is not really the searched for name, when someone does a search, and everyone knows that. I propose either a new name or a new article, called "Amanda Knox murder trial". Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox needs her own article. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why a separate article. This entire story has had too much coverage already. A murderer has been set free. Get over it.

Prosecutor asks jury to convict even if they think Knox is innocent

See here:

In a similar vein, I saw an article about the Knox appeal the other day in which Mignini made an argument that I think would get him thrown out of court in the US. Essentially, his argument was that if Knox wins her appeal, he will appeal to the next highest court. But she will obviously leave Italy and never come back if she wins her appeal now. So, he argued, find her guilty again, even if you think she's innocent, so this can go to the higher court. Perplexing, to say the least.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I corrected your link. As for Jimbo's words, it would be nice to see the source for his post.TMCk (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I read a similar article (or the same one). I'm not sure it's worth tracking down unless we know we'd want to put it in this article.LedRush (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We won't know if it's useful for the article unless we have the actual source presented that backs up what was said and maybe more. W/o source this thread is nothing but a forum entry of personal opinions.TMCk (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's completely not true, but whatever.LedRush (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? What exactly is "completely not true"? Do you mean the forum thing? If so, please explain how this thread is helping in improving the article while no source is present.TMCk (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We have Jimbo's statement on his talk page as a reliable tertiary source, we should be able to find a good secondary source... Count Iblis (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I mean that you can talk about something in general without knowing the specifics. If we found a source that said what he said, what would we do with it? Until we know that answer, it doesn't seem to make sense to start wading through the thousands of articles in the subject to find it. Of course the specifics can change what precisely we'd do with it (and possibly using it at all). But even if it was 100% verifiable and people were opposed to it for whatever reason, why waste the time?LedRush (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. So instead of posting the source we purge "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." from this talkpage then?TMCk (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread what I wrote, try not to be disruptive, and engage in a constructive conversations.LedRush (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto (only that it makes sense when I say it). Why don't you just try to find the article you've read and share it with us? It should be easier for you than for those who didn't have a peek at it before. Do we need to ask Jimbo who didn't post here?TMCk (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the thing...I wouldn't put this in this article (it seems argumentative, to me). I don't want to wade through an ocean of crap just to find others agree with my position.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexual Assualt?

I just want to confirm, Knox is being charged with sexual assault? Is there any evidence of this, I didnt see anything in the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of stuff/information missing

I came to this article to learn/read about what I just heard on TV, how Amanda Knox first told police that she was in another room and held her hands over her ears because he hated hearing Kercher's screams. But then apparently, Knox changed her story. That is what Sky TV said. I think I have heard this before. So I came here to learn more about the changes in her stories, but nothing about this in this article for some reason. I don't know enough about the subject to insert the info.Betathetapi545 (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the Amanda Knox case very well at all - but even I had heard of this "hands over her ears" comment before, so I didn't think it was necessary to go to the trouble of coming up with a citation of something that is so well known - not to mention that this is a Discussion page. Instead of just popping in and saying "Citation needed", why don't you just Google "Amanda Knox hands over her ears" and you will get dozens and dozens of hits from major news organisations. I'm not going to bother to document the obvious on a Discussion page.Betathetapi545 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to MoMK ,Betathetapi545. All the news that fits the agenda. Brmull (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

knox and Sollecito not guilty of murder

...Amanda Knox found guilty of slander of police - three years in jail - already served four so immediate release to pay appeals 22,000 euros - immediate release , also of Rafael Sollecito , immediate release. Not guilty of murder charge. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

What was the basis for the slander of police charge? Since it's not particularly relevant to this article, is it time to create Amanda Knox as something other than a redirect? Dualus (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. She should have her own article. Anders Behring Breivik has one and he is only known for a bomb and an attack on a youth camp. As for the slander charge; She was just as pressured to implicate him as she was forced to be victim in the prosecutors marketing plan Covergaard (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Slander of police was accusing them of assault, she accused them of slapping her twice. I don't think its a good idea to create an article about her at this time , she is still only basically a one event private person. - other may disagree... she has a lot of note in press reports but imo only to do with this issue. Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't see how this acquittal should strengthen the case for a separate article rather than weaken it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, being famous because of a crime association is not a valid criteria for an article, see Casey Anthony. The title of this article seems to get forgotten in all these raging advocacy debates, but Meredith Kercher is still dead and there is still someone or several someones out there that murdered her. This article should be steered back towards the murder and less on the Knox-cheerleading now that she has been acquitted. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

When we host articles about pepper spraying policemen - Knox is super notable compared to millions of articles currently hosted here at en wikiperdia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think Amanda Knox should have her own article. She has reached notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with FP and Tarc - as with Casey Anthony, Knox doesn't rate a separate article per WP:BLP1E unless she assumes a public profile in the future that would warrant one. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E doesn't prevent a separate article because she's not only famous for one event and she's not a low profile individual.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

She is an internationally notable high profile person that many many people want to know about - she is not some new york copper with a pepper spray. - rescue rescueOff2riorob (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• - I think this needs to move from here to Talk:Amanda_Knox and a WP:RFC to see where consensus lies now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see a reason to rush this. She hasn't had an article for four years, another month won't hurt wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Ground Rules - (let's take it slow)

I don't suppose we could agree to making only minor changes in the lede and the appeals sections, and then discussing larger scale changes before implementing them. The article may need to undergo massive changes, but not necessarily. I think it's best to discuss first. After today's verdict is incorporated into the article, of course.LedRush (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with your intent, but I would be surprised if the article isn't soon going to be peppered with sweeping statements about how "her acquittal exposed the previous trial as a grave miscarriage and Italian police work as a farce", about her case encouraging others to fight the sodden Italian judicial system, and about her courage, endurance in jail and rethorical powers when she finally spoke to the jury (personally, I found her address quite lame and nowhere near up to the occasion). All of those statements could easily be supported with source notes to various U.S. magazines, newspaper columnists and bloggers and judicial "experts" who have jumped on the bandwagon, and claimed as unchallengeable because they have been published or quoted by serious newspapers, stated by academics on talkshows and so on. Mmm, yes.Strausszek (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Automatic level of compensation

Being reported as a half a million euros automatic payment to Knox and Sollicito. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Compensation for what? She committed a murder, spends four years in prison is then released on a technicality - and her conviction for defamation (three year sentence) was upheld. As she was held for a year pending trial, and then served a three year defamation sentence, she cannot argue wrongful imprisonment. Don't worry, she is going to make millions of dollars out of killing Meredith anyway.

Separate article needed for Amanda Knox

She has been cleared of this horrible crime. It's unreasonable to redirect her name to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Countercouper (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lumumba is suing her for defamation on the grounds that she pointed him out as the killer at some length. That trial hasn't begun yet I think. And I wouldn't bet big money on the Kerchers definitely *not* filing an appeal, even though they have so far taken the stance that they have faith in the Italian police and courts. Either way, I agree Knox should have her own article but it shouldn't be a fan page or hagiography.Strausszek (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out the deletion review on Amanda Knox talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Kerchers have standing to appeal, that would come from the prosecutors. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that we could re-title it as Trial of Amanda Knox. For Casey Anthony, the article was originally at Death of Caylee Anthony until it was moved during the trial. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe Death of Caylee Anthony was the original title of the article and has not been changed, although some have tried unsuccessfully to create a "Casey Anthony" article. Shirtwaist ☎ 01:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

[8] it was moved just after the trial concluded on July 7 and moved back on July 11 because people were deleting pertinent information since it didn't fall under the trial. "Death" is appropriate for Caylee's case, but not for here. Kercher was clearly murdered, it was not an accidental death, suicide, or manslaughter case. Yet I think "Meredith Kercher killing" is...doesn't sound right, either. People on DRV are saying that it's a BLP violation to have now-acquitted Amanda Knox redirect to a "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article, but I can't figure out what new title we could move to. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The question for her own article should be "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented" I think Amanda Knox should have her own article as her notability has built up over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the article should be moved to Trial of Amanda Knox as suggested. A murder is not notable in itself, it's Knox' trial that's notable. Mocctur (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I know you are talking in respect to WP standards, but try not to say that a trial is more important than the taking of a person's life.... Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sephiroth, Mocctur is talking about notability per wikipedia standards, not importance. He is undeniably correct in his point, and your inappropriate lecturing doesn't add to the conversation.LedRush (talk) 06:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link to the ongoing deletion review for those intrested: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget Raffaele. Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Issymo (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox is the more notable one. The case wouldn't get media attention outside Italy if an Italian was tried for murder in Italy. There are no films or books about Sollecito. Mocctur (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox has not been cleared, or found innocent. The conviction has been found to be legally flawed, and has been overturned. That is all. She could still be - probably is- guilty.

Actually she and Sollecito were found innocent (“formula piena” is the legal term). I know it's mind-boggling to some of us from common law countries, but it's true. Brmull (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox is the notable one

Many, many people are murdered every day, both in western countries and in the third world. A murder in itself is not notable. It is the attention surrounding Amanda Knox, viz. the person of Amanda Knox, which/who makes the case notable. The article title should reflect that. The reason this case still makes the headlines (and films and books, all about Amanda Knox) is Knox and her trial, not the fact that a British citizen died in Italy four years ago. A more appropriate title could be:

• Miscarriage of justice against Amanda Knox
• Amanda Knox affair/trial
• Trial of Amanda Knox as suggested above sounds good.

Mocctur (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I like the first one personally, but anything that expunges the name Meredith Kercher from the pages of Wikipedia sounds good to me. Brmull (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The fact that Knox has become notable, and some sort of celebrity, at least in America, is the consequence of the media campaign mounted (pushed and to some extent financed) by her clan. Renaming the article "Trial of Amanda Knox" would steer it further towards centering exclusively on her part of the story, sensationalizing it and encouraging POV'd material (yeah It can be POV and hyperbolic even if it's pipelined from newspapers, popular comment and tv) about how intolerably she has been abused by the Italians.Strausszek (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox mounted a media campaign for the Italian and British press to make her a huge celebrity and publish prurient details about her life, including numerous false and lurid details concerning sex, violence and drug use? That's so weird? Why would she do that?LedRush (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not that kind of campaign - and don't put words in my mouth okay? Knox's family (which has vast resources and good media connections, enough dough to keep the case in the public eye, help out with getting books and tv films initiated and make sure the story gained snowballing media attention on the lines they wanted, even enough money to fly in supporters from the states for yesterday's court session, as pointed out in passing by the BBC), her family presented it as a nice all-American girl trapped by bad cops, local misfits helping to set her up as a patsy and a scurrilous prosecutor hellbent on jailing her. Actually, the evidence seems to have been damning and I agree with the view that the forensic review of the DNA evidence was presented in a quite generic way by the researchers who did it. Yes, they stated it in a strong way, but their argument was really only about "there isn't quite enough DNA here now" (sorry, tiny specks of saliva, skin fragments or the like on a small item picked from a crime scene cannot be tested for DNA a quite indefinite number of times, any forensic doctor knows this!) and "it just might have been contaminated", while they never addressed: if it was, then is there some fashion or place that it's a bit credible to have been contaminated in?

Also, the case isn't as unique as it has been presented by supporters. Lurid sex-aligned killings and robberies are not ultra unusual, are they? And the kind of things the Knox camp accuse the Italians of carrying on with - substandard forensic work, bullying of suspects and arrestees, and prosecutors trying, for career reasons, to win a case by smearing the defendant for some sort of irrelevant "bad habits" - occur in American courts too, but of course acknowledging this wasn't part of the winning celeb scenario.Strausszek (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Twobells (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the reference for Knox's family having "vast resources" and "good media connections?" The prosecution (or Kercher family) attorney told the jury about the family having spent $1 million in public relations and having a private jet waiting to spirit Knox away. Whereas the $1 million figure relates to attorneys' fees and there is no private jet. Avocats (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Strausszek if you look at the article it's already a Knox hagiography and has been for about six months. With the acquittal it's only going to get worse. Might as well at least have a title that is representative of what's in the article. Brmull (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay Brmull, I get it; you're an American suburban ironic kid and really couldn't care less whether WP is a blog or an (at least sometimes) decent and evenhanded place of reference. Sorry I interrupted your daily watch of Beavis and Butthead! Strausszek (talk) 07:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your bigotry is showing, tone it down, and stop insulting fellow Wikipedians. Unigolyn (talk) 11:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Editors here should be advised that any return to soapboxing and ideological battleground behaviour will not be tolerated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) Given the attention Knox has recieved, there's nothing to stop us from splitting it into two articles (one for the murder of Meredith Kercher and one for Amanda Knox). An article on Knox would go into more detail on her trial and the appeals against it, while this article would be more focused on the murder itself and have a more general look on any of the accused murderers. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would argue WP:TOOSOON. This will either blow over and be forgotten when the next sensational story captures the public imagination, or Knox will use her publicity to launch a spin-off career, which may make her notable for reasons other than her association with this event. Shall we wait a little while and see how this unfolds...? Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it could be worthwhile to see how the dust settles before doing anything. If it helps, I have some sources from the BBC website that might be useful. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC).

The extant issues relating to an Amanda Knox article is that she really does not have anything notable about her except the trial. So it becomes a slag piece. Either that or a content fork with whatever spin wins the day. We have a bad history of spinning out articles which then compete against each other for the TRUTH... At the very least it will simply duplicate this article, which is pointless. I like Future Perfects suggestion; which is to stub Amanda Knox - limiting it to a couple of paragraphs. On top of that I suggest forking this to: Trial of Amanada Knox and Raffaele Sollecito - although this is not a perfect article title it would let us reduce the material here to the basics and rework things in a new article without major BLP concerns. Seeing as the pair are now acquitted that probably draws a line under the events enough to call it largely a conclusion to those trials. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate this article? Not at all. This article contains ridiculously and demonstratively little information about the single person who makes this case notable, namely Amanda Knox. I believe there are a few things to say about the subject of all these books (didn't count them, but two or three dozen?) and a film named for her. Mocctur (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of what Mocctur says above. Let's get with it people; Knox simply requires a separate entry moving forward. Spiculalinguae (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose any suggestion that the murder of this young woman is not notable, though Amanda Knox is indisputably verifiably notable (whether she likes it or not) and deserves a dedicated article — hence my deletion review (as an uninvolved editor who was surprised there was no dedicated biography). -- samj _in^out 00:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As an univolved editor I think you do not appreciate that this is a clear WP:IGNORE situation. This MoMK article contributes nothing of value, is the source of endless content disputes, and editors efforts would be far more productively spent elsewhere. Brmull (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The case as such is obviously notable at this point, but only because of the media coverage and mainly because of Amanda Knox who is the subject of dozens of books, a film etc etc. Murders are committed in Italy (and elsewhere) every day, but I don't see articles on them in Wikipedia. A murder in itself is not notable, so without the miscarriage of justice against Amanda Knox and resulting media coverage, this case would not necessarily be notable. Mocctur (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

How many non-Knox sources do we currently have in the article? – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tribalism

This discussion is descending into Tribalism – where the supporters of side are tending to deliberately offensive to the other. Without the murder there would be no trial nor would any of these people be notable. The murder of Meredith Kercher is in itself notable and now unsolved and thus mysterious. Given the controversy separate articles for the murder & trial are probably the only solution. Even then I predict edit wars. It should be noted that just as Knox’s conviction did not convince some people of her guilt – so her acquittal will not convince some people of her innocence. Also I urge people to show comparison – this is about real people. People should exhibit care -- that families affected may well read this.Jalipa (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The murder is not unsolved. The police and courts had a solution. Thanks to media pressure and lots of American dollars two of the three convictions have been quashed. Don't forget one murderers conviction was upheld.

The murder is unsolved in that the police & courts maintain that the 47 wounds on Meredith's body were inflicted by more than one person. And only one person is jail for it. The other two have now been acquitted. Either aquittal was wrong or the other culprits have not been identified. Jalipa (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Or the police are wrong (which does happen, y'know). I have not read the verdict so I have no idea whether the court commented on whether their decision was based on believing the police incorrect in this regard. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Separate articles seems sensible. It's not an either or. This is not the place for speculation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform. And yes, the families' feelings are an issue.--Flexdream (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Defamation

I believe the use of the word "defamation" to describe the (still standing) conviction against Amanda Knox is misleading (although I realise the press uses this translation a lot). Her conviction of calunnia is not the equivalent of defamation, which is understood by most English speakers to be dealt with under civil law in their systems. By using the word defamation readers have the impression that the Italian legal system is criminally punishing her for something that the American/British system would deal with in a civil suit, which is not an accurate reflection of the conviction. Calunnia could be compared with "perverting the course of justice" in this case as Amanda Knox was accused (and convicted) of making the false accusations to deflect suspicion away from herself (even if she was subsequently found not guilty, this would not absolve her of the charge in Italy, the U.S. or the U.K.). I don't know much about the American legal system, but I suppose that the charge of filing a false police report is similar - though I understand that the way this crime is treated varies widely from state to state.

I would suggest amending the article to use the Italian term calunnia with a brief introductory explanation of its meaning.

Again, it is completely different from defamation (diffamazione in Italian, which is dealt with under a completely separate article in the Italian code.)

Some commentators also seem to be confusing the calunnia charge - this appeal dealt with the charge in relation to her accusations against Lumumba, not her accusations against the police (which are the subject of another trial). Connolly15 (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If we have sources to confirm your understanding, I think clarification is necessary.LedRush (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source (amongst any Italian media source which always use the natural word calunnia) for her conviction of calunnia is here (italian). Wikipedia.it gives a description of calunnia here (italian version). I'll have a look to see if there is anything in English which compares defamation to calunnia.Connolly15 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: Amended link to Repubblica story Connolly15 (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The only English source I have been able to find so far is here on page 12 in the footnote where the author discusses calunnia. Would this be an appropriate source? (Connolly15 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

• Chatillon Stéphane. "Droit et langue". Revue internationale de droit comparé (in French). 54 (3): 714–715. doi:10.3406/ridc.2002.17804. Retrieved 4 Oct 2011. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

In translation:

Italian law - The ingiuria and diffamazione constitute offenses against honor, calunnia and autocalunnia constitute offenses against the judiciary.
Ingiuria is a harm to the honor or dignity of a person present and constitutes a diffamazione to the reputation of a person missing.
In both cases, ingiuria and diffamazione, the penalty is increased when the damage is to assign a specific act.
One is guilty of calunnia "who, by information, complaint, request, even anonymously or under a false name, directly to the judicial authority or another authority is obliged to refer, someone accused of a crime which he knows innocent, or that simulates against him the traces of a crime

LeadSongDog come howl! 05:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think defamation or calumny is the least misleading short description. The judge reading the sentence confirming that conviction specifically said calunnia nei confronti di Lumumba Patrick or words to that effect. If it were "obstruction of justice" or "perverting the course of justice", Lumumba per se would not be the victim. She was convicted specifically for falsely accusing Lumumba (whether she actually accused Lumumba is a little unclear to me, but in any case that's what she was convicted of).

If someone wants to research and give a clear description of the technical distinction between calunnia and diffamazione, I have no objection to that. But glossing it as "obstruction" just doesn't work. --Trovatore (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• Defining callunia as columny won't help most readers. How about defining it as "false accusation"? Brmull (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, isn't there some way to say this that would actually correlate to a western crime? Why not criminal defamation (seeing as it comports most closely to what RSs actually say)?LedRush (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"False accusation" seems about right. In my latest effort I just said what she was convicted of having done, rather than attempting to translate the technical legal term. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You didn't conclusively "prove" anything on here, necessarily, Trovo, but merely made a personal conclusion from what was written (in the conviction sentence). As was brought out by Connolly, the word "defamation" is not really the most accurate or clear, but leaves the notion to most readers that it's a civil offense, when "callunia" is more akin (in the Italian court context) to LYING TO CAUSE DECEPTION AND OBSTRUCTION. And the wording there, that you changed, did NOT only say "obstruction" but rather "LYING and obstruction". To make it clear how the "obstruction" was carried out. Not sure why you object to that so much. If it was "objection" alone, then maybe I could understand. But the word "lying" was there too. And it IS for the matter of misleading and obstructing. The term "defamation" doesn't really convey that precise thought very well. But it's whatever. I'm not gonna belabor this thing forever. It's just that WP should be clear and accurate. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be clear and accurate, and to gloss calunnia as "misleading and obstruction" is flat wrong. Calunnia is cognate with wikt:calumny and refers to a negative statement about an identifiable person. If she had lied about what happened but not indicated anyone in particular, that could still be "misleading and obstruction", but it would not be calunnia. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding me a little bit. OK, so let me be clearer. I KNOW that it's a negative statement "about an identifiable person". That's a straw-man here to me, because I never argued against that and I was always aware of that. BUT...this is the point that you seem to be missing here. It's a negative statement or lie against a specific person FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBSTRUCTING INVESTIGATIONS AND JUSTICE...AND FOR MISLEADING THE POLICE AND COURTS.... It's a CRIMINAL offense, not just a "well you lied about me regarding why I got divorced" having nothing to do with criminal proceedings, or something like that. Italy has a different word and thing for that. So the point is that "defamation" (and I think you kinda agree a little bit in a way) is not the most clear or accurate rendering for "callunnia". Again, it IS "obstruction" as its overall purpose, in that Italian legal context, by lying about "an identifiable person." Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you call it "misleading and obstruction" without mentioning the specific kind, that's just wrong. Neither defamation nor obstruction is exactly right, but defamation is closer by a mile, because the point is that you might have caused the police to investigate a particular person. --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

But again, the point is that it was for the PURPOSE of obstructing and mis-leading. Also, what you're not remembering is that it was NOT just "lying and obstruction" that was stated, but the very Italian word "calunni". Now maybe "lying against a person for obstruction" would have been more clear and thorough, true, but the overall point was there. Yes, against a person, no kidding, but NOT just for any old reason, because they don't like the person, but to steer law enforcement OFF COURSE...to obstruct. That vital point should not be obscured or lost. "Defamation" does say something, but not enough. But the "against a person" I agree should be made clear too. That it was not just "lying" in general, but against a person. Hashem sfarim (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Two observations. First, "calunnia" is not an English word so some translation or explanation is absolutely required. Second, the cited source doesn't say she her conviction for calunnia was confirmed, it says her conviction for slander was confirmed. The article should reflect the cited source.Nstrauss (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand the point about "cited source", but remember "there are no rules on Wikipedia". Meaning that nothing is set in stone, and as Connolly said, the translation "defamation" is NOT really correct. And "callunnia" kinda means something else, and that's also sourced and confirmed elsewhere in the world. Wikipedia should also at least try to reflect what's accurate, NOT ONLY what is "cited". But I agree that it would be wise to find a source, that mentions "callunnia" in the more correct and precise sense, and put that as a ref. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have provided a well known media source which confirms her conviction of "calunnia" was upheld: here (italian). If you need a source in English, that might require some searching around.(Connolly15 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

"Amanda Knox è stata riconosciuta colpevole solo di calunnia - nei confonti di Patrick Lumumba - e condannata a 3 anni di reclusione, già scontati." = "Amanda Knox was found guilty only of calunnia - against Patrick Lumumba - and sentenced to 3 years in prison, already served." (Connolly15 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

Lead Misleading

Rudy Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on 28 October 2008 of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. His fast-track conviction was upheld, and he is now serving a sentence of 16 years, reduced after he incriminated Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American.[1]

Reference 1 although a new article is misleading because it says "Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter with a criminal record, was also sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years in jail for taking part in Kercher's murder." There is no mention of his sentence being reduced to 16 years on appeal.

It implies his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others, but they had already been arrested and found guilty. Also where does it say his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-22/world/italy.kercher.murder.american_1_amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD

Says the reduction was "The reduction was based on technical calculations prescribed by the Italian penal code, he said." The reduction was a standard reduction at appeal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Says "Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, said his client's sentence had been cut after his youth and lack of criminal record were taken into account. The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca."

The others were arrested before him and had already been convicted before his appeal. The lead gives the impression that their trial followed (and was caused by) his "incriminated" them.

Kwenchin (talk)

More sources

• Burleigh, Nina. "The scapegoating of Amanda Knox." (editorial). Los Angeles Times. October 4, 2011.

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Editorial. I've read many that still hold that she's guilty (which I agree with, but that's just my opinion.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it's an editorial (I labeled it as such). Editorials are okay to cite when discussing opinions, but not when discussing facts. Since a portion of this article should discuss opinions related to the case, this article should help with that aspect :) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's useful as a cite for opinions about the case, not for facts. I'd add (as my personal take here) that the writer of that piece is typical on another count too: she's stating that Knox was really condemned for her sexiness, her Americanness, her fresh uninhibited style, and strongly insinuates that it's typically Italian (murky catholicism?) to jump on foxy women, but avoids owning up that the things she's accusing Italian courts and media of - hypocrisy, character smear, sexism, irrelevant personal aspects of the defendant brought into the case, sloppy forensics - happen in U.S. courts and media as well, and especially when there is some connection to sex or implied treachery. And those cases most often don't make near the headlines the Kercher/Knox case has made.

I remember seeing a documentary, about a year ago - the airing date in America would have been earlier, no need to ask "what series and episode was it?" - on a case where a southern U.S. woman, married to a military officer, was charged with murder some time after he had suddenly died. The prosecutor painted an emotional picture of her as a cheap and treacherous gold digger who had deliberately poisoned hubby after several years of marriage, inciting a sudden heart failure or the like (the guy already had a mild medical condition), in order to get the milo widow pension and the insurance. The evidence was mostly circumstantial - details about changes *he* had made in his life insurance, supposedly at her instigation, and so on, plus her 'unreliable' and shopping-happy character which was really back-written into the case by the prosecutor. Vitally, there was not even any conclusive evidence he had died from unnatural causes, but this didn't stop the prosecutor or the police. The main piece of hard technical evidence consisted of dna from the woman on - a medical tube or package I think. She was convicted in the first round and sentenced to life in prison, in another state she might have been sentenced to death. As I recall it, everything was upheld at first appeals which was a rather quick affair, and during which she was openly insulted and denigrated in the courtroom by the prosecutor.

Getting a second appeals process going had not been easy, but finally she managed to find a new and better lawyer (and to take up loans to pay him and the expenses of countering the evidence: she was not being offered help with getting such loans by the state, no sir, and refused by most banks). The new lawyer finally managed to show, conclusively, that samples of dna had gotten mixed up at the lab. Unlike in the Knox case it wasn't "it's just possible they got contaminated" but a definite inquiry and admission that they had been confused. So the case was uncomfortably parallel to Knox, but she had had to fight this without a hefty media campaign, and being somewhat obstructed and smeared for being "oh that treacherous woman" by U.S. prosecutors, jurors and journalists.

This all happened within the 00s decade, in the US. Something tells me that woman will never get anywhere near the attention and adulation Knox is getting, nor will she be seen as a "typical American girl".Strausszek (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 3#Amanda Knox

Just to make sure everyone knows. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we get this exact?

One of her Italian flatmates had left town and Knox was at Sollecito's flat. The four Italian men who shared the downstairs flat had also left town.[5]:41

Does Dempsey actually say that they had "left town"? When this expression is used it implies that the person has "vamooshed", "cleared out", "shot through", "debunked", "absconded" or "done a runner", i.e. it implies suspicious circumstances, and that the person had gone permanently. Had these people "left town" or were they simply "out of town", i.e. travelling, visiting family or the like.

Some of the language used in this article carries implications that are incorrect. I have corrected the fact that the flat was not "unoccupied" i.e. "vacant". But I cannot correct this other wording if in fact the six residents had all gone permanently.

Amandajm (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

She just means they were out of town. I see no problems with it. They went home because of the 3 day weekend. Issymo (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Issymo, it really doesn't matter what "she means". What matters is the implication. Being "out of town" and "left town" carry entirely different implications. This is about a murder enquiry. The language needs to be exact and not imply something that is not the case. Amandajm (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to delete all false allegations as BLP violation

Under Italian law a 530.1 acquittal means that the entire case was fabricated out of whole cloth, that all the evidence was false. Knowingly repeating prosecution arguments that were proven in court to be false could be defamatory under U.S. law, and at the very least are inappropriate for Wikipedia BLPs. All prosecution statements about Knox and Sollecito should be removed. Brmull (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, making allusions to things being illegal walk dangerously close to making legal threats. I think it is clear you aren't making any legal threats, but I did just want to throw that out there. Secondly, I don't see how reporting on what others have reported on is illegal under any law. Otherwise all the journalists covering the case would be in jail. The accusations were made. That is verifiable fact. As for now, the allegations have been determined false by a court. That is also a verifiable fact. However, just because the court says it's true doesn't mean it is true. Just as when she was found guilty we included the defense arguments, we must include the prosecution arguments even when she is found innocent. Courts don't determine what is notable, what is true, or what we report on Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 02:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that we are reporting what RS sources said in the past, which was true then to the best of anyone's knowledge, but which we now know is false. I am not aware of any similar 530.1 situation in Wikipedia, but WP:BLP tells us to avoid prolonging victimization, which exactly what we're doing by discussing these allegations in detail. There is a counter-example in Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. where the article repeats a libellous statement in full. I think a lot of editors would be uncomfortable with that, and this is certainly worse. Brmull (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We don't know it's false. We only know that a court in Italy said it was false. Who knows what the next court will say. And it doesn't matter...courts don't decide the truth.LedRush (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brmull; I agree with tightening some of the material and reducing the speculation stuff - with an eye on the BLP aspect now they are acquitted. But we obviously can't remove it... --Errant ^(chat!) 12:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that they are acquitted (for now; there will likely be a further appeals trial) doesn't mean that the court has stated anything in the vein of "the case against Knox and Sollecito was a wholesale mockup, a deliberate fabrication", that it should have been thrown out at day one. The verdict says the evidence was judged insufficient and that the DNA traces may be due to contamination, not that anyone deliberately put them there. The Perugia court would have shown criminal laxity in its work if four years ago it had ignored the evidence and just said "Aaaah that girl Knox is so charming and so inocent! Can't be her."Strausszek (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. What you are describing is a 530.2 acquittal for insufficient evidence. A 530.1 acquittal says the charges were baseless. As to whether Wikipedia should continue to present evidence that a court has found baseless... I would like to know what "tightening up" as Errant recommends is going to fix this BLP issue? Is this going to become (even more of) a cruel article where the prosecution's case is relentlessly mocked? What about having some sensitivity to the family of that girl whose picture is at the top of the page. We should just describe the crime, talk about Guede's role, include a brief summary of the other verdicts, and be done with it. Brmull (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No, if the court said the earlier charges had finally been found groundless, unfounded, that still doesn't mean it branded the earlier courtroom process as fraudulent ("fabricated of whole cloth" in your words) or marked by such gross incompetence as to be a criminal offence against Knox and her boyfriend - or that any part of the inquiry had been deliberately made up. That's just the spin of some journalists and editorialists; people have become heavily engaged in this and there was an obvious wish to grab the victory trophy and shout not just "Knox has been acquitted!" but "our story of *why* she was charged, sentenced and held in jail was the true one!". Without actual access to the text of the verdict (preferably with a good translation into English), or to statements explaining it from the judge, we shouldn't indulge in any ideas that they branded the earlier court as a pack of bandits or hypocrite smearers.

And I agree with LedRush that if it's illegal or useless to report on the actual allegations, accusations, circumstances and testimonies of a court case as these are told in the court, or by other news outlets - illegal and defamatory once some of those stories and statements have been dismissed - then all journalists who reported on this story, or on the marriage breakdown of Tiger Woods or the pedophilia charges against Michael Jackson, would be behind bars, together with their publishers and photographers. There was lots in that reporting, inside and outside of the courtrooms, that was later dismissed or likely plain old lies. This doesn't affect the right to report it. You're free to think the reporting was excessive and sometimes degrading, I certainly thought so about Woods, but it wasn't illegal. Nor is it illegal to restate it here, but it should be done without overuse of pathos and emotional wording.

And "What about having some sensitivity to the family of that girl whose picture is at the top of the page?" Hmm, I thought you posted a few days ago on this page that you'd prefer the article to be written, and titled, in such a way as to excise the name of Meredith Kercher (but not Aamanda Knox) from Wikipedia.Strausszek (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Basis of acquittal

The basis of acquittal is a key part of the legal case. I visited this page to add a clear short summary based on an explanation of key points. The list looked reasonable, was reported on BBC news, and also seemed neutral, hence edited in. It got taken out.

I'm not sure why it was removed. The revert was on the unlikely grounds of "shoehorning in... text which implies the acquittal was a fix or dubious", but this is clearly incorrect considering the first 5 items cited in the original article were:

• Reasonable doubt instilled over the quality of DNA testing and forensic evidence
• "A few" crime scene errors "successfully portrayed as generalised incompetence"
• No convincing proof of Knox's presence
• No credible motive
• Unreliable witness (Curatolo had admitted being a heroin addict)

(Source and original list)

Removing this sourced balanced information is unhelpful for understanding of the legal outcome. Reinstate? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edit, but suspect that the issue here is that the source gives the guesses of a freelance journalist (and doesn't pretend otherwise) rather than the actual reasoning of the court, which will not be released for a few months. --FormerIP (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Until that report comes out, the best we can say is that "jounalists/legal experts have speculated that the reasons for acquittal were...". I'm not saying there is no place in the article for that, but it doesn't seem like something I am very comfortable with.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Source is more credible than that - it's the author of a book on the case speaking to the BBC, rather than speculation by a frelancer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the source is fine. It's a question of not giving the impression that those are the actual reasons, rather than the opinions of a journalist (or author, fine). I also think there's no need to rush that type of content. There should maybe be an "opinions on verdict" section or something, but using multiple sources giving different perspectives. --FormerIP (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, when we have more opinions and analyses of the verdict we should do that. But even if we have just one, if it seems fairly neutral it's useful and relevant to add. In this case the points seem balanced, some relate to flaws in evidence or process, some describe factors related to how cases proceed in Italy, some refer to PR and social factors. The text is by an author on the case, and is published by a reputable media source. I think this can stand, although as time goes on, more will surely be published in RS. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed similar content for the reasons stated above: it is opinion stated as fact. I could just as easily include Nancy Grace's opinion that it was a miscarriage of justice and state it in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore, the court has already stated its reasoning: there was no credible evidence. Brmull (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Erm, citation needed. --FormerIP (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Brmull, you had no valid WP reason or right to unilaterally remove that section, simply because "you don't like it". Or because you think it's just mere "opinion" stated as fact. What you miss for some reason is that contextually it's part of defense arguments and IS SOURCED. There was no real solid valid reason to remove that. Otherwise remove other sections too, in that area, to be consistent, that deal with defense arguments and issues. You're incorrect when you say it's just "opinion stated as fact". These were all documented points and facts. How was "no DNA in bedroom", for example, just an "opinion"? If you don't like the wording, then MAYBE MODIFY that, per WP policy and recommendation. The WP recommendation is NOT to totally delete a whole section that you don't like, even though it's sourced, because of MAYBE questionable "wording". But the recommendation is to modify or tweak, NOT to remove. But the overall point is there. The criteria is this: was everything in that section true or correct?...and is it all SOURCED? Answer to both questions is Yes. Removing a whole section willy nilly, without valid reason, or making up reasons that are not really true, is arguably vandalism, or at the very least "I Don't Like". Again, the thing is sourced, and is a matter of public court record, and is documented, and again, in context was part of defense arguments, and should be mentioned in the article...in the overall sections dealing with the trial and case and defense. It's true and sourced, and was part of the defense. And WP should reflect that. End of story. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not the end of the story just because you say it is. As the person who added new content it's your responsibility to justify why it should be included. By your reasoning I could put anything I want into the article that I think is true and I think is sourced. We are having a discussion now about whether it is appropriate to include speculation on the reasons for the acquittal at this time. Several people including myself believe it is not. Mr. FT2 just had an essentially identical edit removed pending discussion, so to leave yours and to remove his makes no sense. Brmull (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but again, you incorrectly asserted that it was mere "opinion". And with this point, you didn't answer the question, like how, for example, was "no DNA in bedroom", just an "opinion"? As well as the other points stated? These were confirmed factual points, that went way beyond the New York Post or USA Today "opinion". And these points were brought out by the defense. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Former IP: "there is no evidence" - Judge Hellmann. Brmull (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Slightly poor use of Google translate there. "Amanda e Raffaele possono anche essere responsabili della morte di Meredith, ma non ci sono le prove" = "Amanda and Raffaele may also be responsible for Mereidith's death, but there is not the proof". Hardly the same as "no credible evidence and also not a quote from Hellmann but part of the journalist's write-up. What Hellmann actually says is "La nostra valutazione è che non è stato sufficiente l'impianto accusatorio ma indubbiamente gli elementi c'erano" = "Our evaluation is that the prosecution case was not sufficient but parts of it were undoubtedly valid". --FormerIP (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

These are real people we are talking about. They are now free and have been unequivocally acquitted, like it or not. Slanting this article to make it look as though there is something dodgy about the acquittals could have real-world consequences for them. Please let's be responsible about this. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We maintain a neutral viewpoint, which is non-negotiable. Would you rather misrepresent the trial result? The trial findings were what they were. We represent that honestly and faithfully. Undoubtedly the findings are nuanced - they do not say all evidence was fake or wrong, they do not say all evidence was valid and upheld. They say this evidence stood up well, that evidence did not, and the parties are therefore according to Italian law acquitted. And that's exactly how we should report it so a reader can gain a genuine understanding. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian with a similar quote. Hellmann said slightly different things in different interviews, but it's a 530.1 acquittal. That means no convicing evidence. Brmull (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

In the interview you linked to above, Hellmann says is was 530.2. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

So it does. Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously Hellmann is confused because when he read the verdict he said "for not having committed the crime" which is the language for 530.1 Brmull (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone keeps reinserting a bullet point list of reasons for the acquittal. I agree that we should have a section which discusses the reasons for the acquittal, but I think it should be based on the Judge's report and not on the speculation of pundits. Until the report is released, I suggest we simply stick with what the presiding judge (and what the other judge and lay judges) said about this. If we want to talk about the media reaction to the acquittal, that's fine. But that should be in the media section, completely separate from a section discussing the stated reasons of the court.LedRush (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your comment shows clearly what I've been saying, that you just don't understand the point here. It was NOT ABOUT the judge's reversal, but rather about DEFENSE ARGUMENTS...mainly. It was NOT ABOUT the media's reaction the acquittal, or their guesses, necessarily. (sighs...) It was about what the defense argued. And the general "problems" with the "evidence" against Amanda Knox. That's not just a "pundit's" opinion, but things that were documented and stated ALREADY. It's not speculation that these were (I'll say it again, so you can maybe finally get it) DEFENSE DEFENSE DEFENSE arguments. And the section that you kept uptightly removing was CONTEXTUAL to that matter. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why don't you find some sources that back up what you're saying, and place the suggested language in the discussion page so we can talk about it. Also, could you please try and engage in discussion civilly? Your drama doesn't help your case, nor do your repeated personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

??You keep whining about civility, but what you keep doing here does not make that easy. You just said "why not find some sources"?? Ok, I'll repeat: OTHER SOURCES WERE FOUND... You said here just now "find some sources that back up what you're saying". What do you mean exactly? I found two other sources today, that I placed nicely (it took work, that you just rudely removed and didn't care about obviously), that "backed it up". If you had an issue with the "New York Post" thing in the beginning, if you saw my edit comments, I said I agree in a way, and then found two more (so far) sources substantiating what was stated in the points there. So again, I'll ask, what did you mean by "find some sources"? Did you see what I placed there before you hastily reverted again? Two more sources were found. Did you not even notice that? Or maybe those sources were somehow not good enough? Just curious... Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources I saw did not substantiate the specific claims made in the bullet points. Why not take the get the sources (and any others you want) and create a new section here which pulls directly and exclusively from those sources?LedRush (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Then you weren't looking carefully enough, because those two other sources DID substantiate (hence why I got them the first place!) those couple of bulleted points there. Not sure how you missed it. Unless it's as I said on your talk page, you're just not honest, and, for whatever reason, you just don't like that section or those points on there. And just use front excuses to get rid of it. Conveniently. Human nature. I wanna give the benefit of the doubt. But those sources made those couple of points clear. And even if they didn't, the WP policy is to modify something, not necessarily totally get rid of it. But as I said, I can't reason with a person who is being blatantly dishonest about things. It just doesn't work. Those two other ref sources clearly confirmed those points, yet you said they didn't. I could prove it to you, on here, by copying and pasting things, etc, showing it, but at this point, it's not worth the trouble, cuz I'm sure you'll find something there somehow that "doesn't confirm" it anyway. Those bulletted points were not made up by the NY Post, or any other news organization. They didn't concoct them, but got them from documented things in the case, and defense arguments. And in context to that part of the article, it IS relevant...and informative. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

If you spent the time you used to make personal attacks while petulantly whining about your edits instead making an actual argument with proof here, you'd probably have something in the article by now.LedRush (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice dodge. You didn't answer just how those two sources did not confirm those couple of points there, but just asserted so. Why would I even find and put those sources there in the first place then, if they had nothing to do with at least two of those bulletted points? Obviously it was backing it up. Let me ask you, is it maybe because you have something against the idea of a list or bulletted points, in general? (I'll expect another evasion...and crowing about "personal attacks"...or maybe just crickets...but it would be nice to have an answer...two those two questions. How exactly did those sources not back anything up? And do you have something against bulletted listings etc?) Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how this did not confirm this bulletted point that was there:

Other knife: DNA on another knife found at Raffaelle Sollecito's house had such a slight presence it could not be ruled an exact match to Kercher.[119]

"Two experts argued that DNA evidence found on the knife used to kill Kercher and on her bra clasp was unreliable and contaminated by poor handling."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/02/world/europe/knox-appeal-explainer/

That was one of the sources put in, that I doubt you really checked carefully. But how exactly does that not confirm the point? That's CNN. I mean, New York Post should have been enough, as that is a reliable source, but you claimed that all those points was not found in the article...not understanding that it was NOT on the website, but on the physical hard copy news paper. But even after the CNN page ref, you still question and remove the whole thing. And ignore the obvious relevance with defense arguments. Hence why I say that THERE'S NO REASONING WITH A PERSON LIKE YOU. I knew that basically from second one of seeing your words. I'm waiting for more dodges now from you and more whines about uh "personal attacks" while ignoring the actual specifics and clear proof that I just copied and pasted and demonstrated. Hashem sfarim (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have some doubts about bullets. The body of the article previously did not have bullets. What makes these points more worthy of being bulleted than anything else in the article? Secondly, we know from painful experience with this article that partial lists are contentious. Someone will want to add to the list. Someone else will want to substract from it. If there was a way to phrase this information that wouldn't be a magnet for controversy I'd be in favor, but right now I just don't see it. Brmull (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if that's true, there's nothing in WP policy that forbids bullets or listings. Listings are easy reading and informative, and generally appreciated by readers. Quick reference, etc. And again, the thing was sourced, and accurate. Those things should be paramount. NOT whether they sometimes can attract controversy or attitudes. Hashem sfarim (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the acquittal and release

This section needs to be reviewed. It relies on two sources NY Post and Reuters Article. Both are reports of an interview that one of the judges gave to an Italian media source. If you read the NY Post article it emphasises that the judge thinks the original trial was politically biased because she was American. If you read the Reuters article it suggests that Italian judge thinks that essentially she did kill her. Obviously these are two slanted interpretations of one interview.

The Wikipedia article is drafted to represent the views of the NY Post, not Reuters.

Maybe it would be better if an English version of the interview could be found, failing which I think this should be removed as it is not apparent which version of the interview is more accurate. I certainly don't think it is accurate to just pick the NY Post's version of the interview and portray it as what the Italian judge said.

Please note, I am not trying to involve myself in this debate of whether she did it or not - I am only concerned that there is an obvious unprofessional bias being reflected in the Wiki article as it stands. I would raise the same concern if it reflected the Reuters article. Perhaps if it must be included as content, something could be mentioned that different interpretations of the interview have appeared in the English media? (Connolly15 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC))

One problem is Judge Hellmann has given a number of interviews to the Italian media each of which is slightly different. Brmull (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed Nancy Grace comment on acquittals. The woman is a rabble rouser who never met a defendant who wasn't guilty. I don't see that adding her inflammatory comment helps readers understand anything. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Nancy Grace did find a defendant who (she thought) was not guilty. Martha Stewart. Grace thought Martha was basically innocent. Nancy Grace is a joke. So in any WP article, her name should always be used carefully, sparingly, and in only certain contexts. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The New York Post bases itself on an interview of the Judge with the newspaper 'La Nazione' (but has a wrong link to a news piece which has no interview), while the Reuters article bases itself on the interview of the Judge with newspapers 'La Stampa' and 'Corriere della Sera'. The section definitely needs to be improved.Tinpisa (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The new version is a big improvement, thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

(reset indentation) Since the original interviews of the Judge are in Italian, they have only been partly quoted by the English press. I tried to introduce the other details by translating them from Italian to English in accordance with WP:NOENG. They have however been reversed. I quote from WP:NOENG: Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations. From my understanding of the text, Wikipedia does trust Wikipedians to translate. Or am I mistaken? Need a clarification please. --Tinpisa (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes we can use a source in foreign language for facts (if there is no English language source available) and translate it into prose. What we cannot do is translate a quote by ourselfs as this is a matter of interpretation of the original.TMCk (talk) 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the clarification, TMCk! I could have never known these finer points, as there is nothing written in WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions or in WP:NOENG, giving this fine difference between using foreign language facts vs quotes. Thanks once again. Maybe, the policy also needs an updation! :-). Have a nice day. Tinpisa (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCMk! Unlike you, I am still learning at Wikipedia. I need your advice on why you undid revision 454415965, where you commented: Sorry, but you need a source for the English translation. See wp:OR. Per WP:OR#Translations and transcriptions, Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research. I have also been told that although the WP:NOTENG section of Wikipedia:Verifiability has been reworded from time to time, its intent has remained the same for several years. This, for example, is the text from the end of 2007. This clearly says: Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation. I had placed the sources of the Italian newspapers La Nazione and La Stampa (which are fortunately still there on the page). So inpite of placing a clear citation of the non-English sources, and faithfully tranlating it, you undid my post. You first mentioned that the reversal was since my post needed a source for the English translation as per WP:OR. Then you said that we cannot do is translate a quote by ourselfs as this is a matter of interpretation of the original. But WP:OR even allows spoken words, not just sourced material. You also undid my post about the Supreme Court ruling judging Guede as one of the assasins, saying Appeals: ce. That's already a given; He was convicted for the murder. Obviously, he was convicted for murder, but the Supreme Court of Italy recognised the fact that there was more than one assasin i.e. Guede was not the only one. This is totally different from being the only assasin. After the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the Appeals Court, this has a very different meaning. I only brought the fact to light (no original research here), but you removed it. Was there something I didn't understand. I would like to request you to please tell me how I was wrong on both these posts? Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right on this one Tinpisa. I'm not aware of any policy which distinguishes quoted speech from other forms of editor-translated text. I also think the Supreme Court's ruling in Guede's case is notable and relevant. Brmull (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You (Tinpisa) certainly are right that WP policies and guideline don't prohibit translations of quotes from another language although you didn't go by the book and neither did I as it appears. Though there are limitations of how much quotes should be used in a single article and your last edit where you found the same quote you previously translated yourself [The translation from the Reuter's source quite varies from yours if I may point this out] is much better of course but you made a mistake by continuing quoting the article's prose w/o attribution which is a copy-vio. I don't have the time but maybe you could rephrase it into some personal prose, your own writing I mean by this. The way it is now can't stay. In the future please keep in mind that translations [and translations of quotes should really be addressed more thorough in the police and guidelines] from reliable English sources are preferred so editor's translations should be a last resort. This is of course in part my opinion in reading WP guidelines and policies.TMCk (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi TMCk! I expected a more mature response from an experienced Wikipedian. (I'm just a newbie.) Obviously, all of us are fallible (if we arn't, we'd be Gods). I've made many mistakes on Wikipedia (you can see my talk page), and probably you have too. We should admit our mistakes, learn from them, and move on in life. I don't have much time too, and this is perhaps my last post on this page, but I don't think your comment that the way it is now can't stay is justified. I request you to improve the section and the article. I also don't understand your phrase by continuing quoting the article's prose w/o attribution. I was the one who added all the sources in the said section (except the NY Post source). Anyway, I would request you to consider the matter closed as Wikipedia is no place for anger or ego! Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Split apart sections of the article into Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

I have seen this proposed here early and now in the DRV there should be an article for the trail of Amanda Knox and Raffaele, it currently is notable enough for a stand alone article. Please place Support or Oppose and your reasoning behind your choice about this issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe wait for the outcome of the DRV first before starting random articles?TMCk (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support but agree with TMCK also. The difficulty is a bit of vagueness in the DRV discussion. Not clear how many editors want exactly what. I don't think there should be an AK article, but I also don't think there should be multiple new articles just to keep everybody satisfied. The more articles there are, the more difficulty is created for readers. So I would support this split if it gets consensus and resolves the issue. Titlte should probably be "Trials of...", though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont know how you could put the whole trial under Amanda Knox though, her boyfriend was tried as well so even if there is an article on Amanda Knox a short summary of the trail can be placed there with a link to the main article. There is no rush for this split though I am throwing the idea here as I have seen it pop up alot and support it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

For sure the whole trial shouldn't be in an "Amanda Knox" article but here on this one, unless or till it's getting too big and a section fork would be warranted. Right now we're not at this point yet and I don't see one in the future unless of course the media keeps on bringing more due material to incorporate.
My point: We're fine at the moment as we still have plenty of space for more content in this article where all due weight about the trial should be. Guess we'll see in the next weeks while watching the media reporting if we need to fork off some content for space and also if a "Amanda Knox" bio is warranted. There is no rush though as there never is one on wiki.TMCk (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Add: This article already is mostly of Knox's and Sollecito's trial (Guede is barely mentioned in comparrison).TMCk (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I generally agree with TMCk. Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It was just a matter of time.TMCk (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support new article. Most readers of MoMK want to know the details of the crime, not paragraphs and paragraphs of useless back and forth about two people who were ultimately found to have nothing to do with it. Brmull (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Support - It seems obvious that the specific Amanda Knox matter, situation, case, and trial is stand-alone and notable, and copiously sourced. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds I don't know. Yes, the media focused on Knox in this murder case but especially since she was officially cleared of the charges we ought to be very careful not to attach her to the murder by writing a POV fork article about how "they wronged her" and neither one that places doubt on her innocents. Same for Sollecito BTW. "Most readers want to know the details of the crime"? We don't include every undue/fringe etc. content out there to WP. That's the presse's job if one might say so. At the moment there is not much to add and not much to remove from this article and certainly not much to be moved to any other potential article. It'll show in the near future if that changed. So till then: Just show patience.TMCk (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What's undue/fringe about taking the sections about the Knox/Sollecito trials and putting them in a new article? True, that article is probably going to be a permanent POV wasteland just like it is here at MoMK. But I'd like to see a quality, NPOV article at MoMK and that will never happen as long as the Knox POV war rages here. Brmull (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This article is greatly needed. Now that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been acquitted the trial needs its own article. They are no longer part of the Murder of Meredith Kercher. The MOMK article will also need a huge overhaul.Issymo (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted subject to appeal, they remain part of the murder of Meredith Kercher until such time as they are deemed not guilty by law, which is not until after the final appeal. I agree that we should proceed as you say, but only after the decision of the final appeal. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

• Oppose, all these individuals came to public attention for one reason - the murder of MK and its direct aftermath/consequences. While some were acquitted and some convicted, and the trial is a large part of that topic, I think it better explains events in one article. If there is too much we need to say on the trial (or any other aspect really) for a single article then we might use summary style but I'm not seeing that right now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hardly, the arrest, retainment, trial, conviction, appeal and release took 4 YEARS of constant media attention. They have been acquitted and have been proven to have nothing to do with the murder. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's OWN story is one of wrongful imprisonment. Just because it started with the Murder of Meredith Kercher does not make it ABOUT the murder. It is actually its own story. There is an abundance of information for a seperate artical, actually, there is much more information about the wrongful trial and conviction then of the Murder itself. More importanly, it has nothing to do with the Murder itself.Issymo (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We aren't here to publicize "stories" or to support causes. There is a difference between how Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) covers a topic, and how news and media cover it. That it took 4 years is completely irrelevant - a matter that took 4 years can still easily be covered as one topic. An article is quite capable of covering a murder and its aftermath, and saying that some were acquitted and others were not. Please consider how other articles work and approach this one as an encyclopedia article. ""Person X was wrongly imprisoned and got acquitted" is not by itself a good reason to split an article. The "trial" section is a well balanced length. The article is a reasonable length for something of this profile. There isn't presently more that needs to go into it. And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

"And the trial has everything to do with the murder of course". No, it had nothing to do with the murder and everything to do with a wrongful conviction.Issymo (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This is basic cause and effect. The "wrongful conviction" was a result of the trial. The trial was about the murder. The evidence at the trial and appeal was all evidence related to whether or not the defendants were the murderers. Most murder articles cover the events, the evidence, and the trial. They cover the trials resulting from the murder whether or not the defendants were in fact found innocent, because the trial is part of the event's encyclopedia coverage. If there is an excessive amount then summary style may be used for a sub-article, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is now looking to be tangential to the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and information on Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito excessively outweigh information on Kercher, her circumstances, murder, murderer and the convicted murderer's conviction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were the accused in the Murder of Meredith Kercher, and the trial was a result of being the accused. Had there been no murder, there would have been no trial. All the facts discussed in the trial pertained to the case of the murder of MK. The fact that the accused were wrongly charged and have now been aquitted, does not make the case notable. There are hundreds of acquittals around the world - an encyclopedia needn't have articles for each of the trials. The fact that there was a trial by media is secondary. There have been many other cases with excessive media attention. What could be done, perhaps, is having a redirect to the relevant section in the article Murder of Meredith Kercher.--Tinpisa (talk) 07:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Late comment:The MoMK article is remarkably similar to the Caylee Anthony case (the accused were acquitted by the jury in both cases, both cases attracted a lot of media attention, and public sympathy). Just as splitting the Caylee Anthony article was not justified, so is it for the MoMK article. Tinpisa (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support Just because this event caused another, doesn't mean they need to share the same article. It's got standalone sources now that separate it from the murder, even if the two events are heavily related. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Still oppose - most complex events have sources that discuss different aspects or one aspect but not others. The trial is completely connected to the murder. It wouldn't matter who was acquitted or how high profile the event, we're an encyclopedia - we don't artificially split apart events and their direct consequences, or put a crime in one article and the trial of its suspects in another article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

What does being an encyclopedia have to do with artificially splitting apart events and their direct consequences? If sources treat them separately, we give them separate articles. And we do have sub-articles as well for a reason (e.g. Adolf Hitler and Sexuality of Adolf Hitler). – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "sources treat them separately"? Every report I've seen about Knox has always been within the context of the murder case and vice-versa. The fact that the two events are so inextricably linked means it would make no sense for a source to mention one without also mentioning the other. There is nothing "separate" about Kercher, Guede, Knox, and Sollecito, they're all part of the same event and none of them rise to the level of notability of the trial and aftermath (which is why I think everything belongs under one banner, "The Trials of Knox"). In this case, a source choosing to focus on one aspect of this event does not make that aspect "separate" to the extent that a separate article is called for. Shirtwaist ☎ 19:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose at the moment. I agree that splitting would gut this article of content. I would suggest that once the final appeal is concluded and guilt or innocence is conclusively determined some of the content on this page dedicated to the trial and the aftermath could be transferred to a new trial article if they are ultimately acquitted. This article could then be reshaped to reflect a partially unsolved murder (if one accepts that there were multiple assailants in the murder). I don't think that this should happen before the final appeal is decided - if the acquittal is overturned on appeal they will ultimately in the eyes of the law be guilty of the crime and IMHO it would be appropriate to maintain the information in this article. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC))

Comment: The article as it stands is unruly with info about the trials interspersed with discussion of forensics, etc. There is easily enough information about the investigation to fill its own article, just as there is enough about the trials to fill its own article. And while we don't have a crystal ball, unconditional acquittals in Italy are almost never overturned on final appeal. We are on fairly safe ground assuming this is the end of this case. Brmull (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support I suppose we usually don't have separate articles for crimes and the resulting trials, but I think that this is a bit of an unusual case. There was a murder and a conviction in addition to a notable media circus that led to an (apparently) wrongful conviction of others. I think that there's a strong case that there are two notable subjects here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I think Amanda Knox should have her own article and that the users opposing that refuses to see the benifits of having a separate article for her. But if this is the closest we can get to that at the moment I support it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Trial of Knox/sollecito article but I Support a Separate Amanda Knox Article - Breaking up the MoMK article and the Knox/Sollecito trial would be messy and basically gut this article. Breaking out a Knox article would have the dual effect of providing an article which our readers frankly expect to exist, plus give us the opportunity to move over (and possibly expand) the coverage of some ancillary trials and info on media coverage of Knox, allowing this article to stay more on its actual topic. Win-win!LedRush (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on what happens going forward with her. If it stays WP:BLP1E (for example, her life post-trial is some writings, book, interview, media stuff and basically all the direct aftermath of the case) then that can be summed up in a few sentences and added to a section called "aftermath". If it gets beyond WP:BLP1E and isn't just crystal ball speculation, I'd endorse a separate Amanda Knox article at that point because that would be outside the scope of the legal case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

She is giving press conferences and interviews, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that it would apply anyway (4 years is an awfully long event...she is originally notable for the murder, but her other actions (like allegations of sexual harrassment in prison, press conferences, interviews, etc.) are now independently notably, and it takes intellectual gymnastics to count this an one event. There is a lot of notable, biographical information about her that simply doesn't belong in a MoMK article.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea of BLP1E is people who come to notice for one cause. The mediaattention is still, if you are dispassionate, all basically "noted for one event". There was a murder. People got arrested charged, and jailed, there was debate and outcry over the crime and trial, they appealed, were acquitted, and are now being asked to present their views and feelings to the media. It's all "one thing" - one event and its natural followthrough - from an encyclopedia viewpoint. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think your inclusion criteria is at odds with most of the BLPs in Category:Overturned convictions by country, and probably a lot of other categories. "people who come to notice for one cause" is a very loose rule, and is not one that we follow. It would require seriously responsible editorial judgment. Our editors are not qualified for that. This is why we follow an easier rule - "we cover what others have already covered." There is plenty of independent reputable secondary source coverage of Knox. I disagree that BLP1E should cover extended followthroughs. Instead, all of: (a) the murder, (b) the accusation, (c) the sensational prosecutor's case, (d) the trial and conviction and long incarceration, (f) the popular and vocal ensuing worldwide noise asserting a miscarriage of justice, (g) the appeal and overturn, are all separate events, and BLP1E does not apply. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E does exists as a guideline with to ensure to that low profile individuals aren't given too much attention because of their role in one event. (From the policy: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.") Knox is not a low profile individual and therefore the guideline (which is loose anyway) doesn't apply to her. She seeks out the media attention to help her case and therefore the privacy concern is no longer an actual concern. That it takes intellectual gymnastics to view this as a single event is merely the icing on top. BLP1E simply doesn't apply here.LedRush (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Strongly support, and it should be "Trials of AK and RS". The trial - with its offshoots - is notable in a sense that stands quite apart from the crime - which is also notable though. It also has much wider (but more controversy-ridden) sources. Splitting out the trial/s (and perhaps moving the Amanda Knox redir there, but I have no trouble with setting up a separate Knox article either, she is achieving notability by now) would likely help improve the current article, heave off some of the edit warring and sensationalizing from here and make MoMK more focused on the circumstances of the crime and the initial, pre-trial inquiry. It would also save it from jolting every time one of the participants in the trial story gives an interview, writes a book (as Knox will probably do) or a new trial makes news (Knox's parents are due for trial in a few months for defamation, Guede might appeal, and there will likely be one more round of the main trial process, etc)Strausszek (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support  The prevailing view as of 3 October is that AK and RS were not present during the murder of Kercher, thus their story is not directly a part of the current Topic and the material here is currently too closely associated with Guede's story.  Also, the concerns of those that are seeing a need for a BLP for AK will be reduced by having an article title with the two words "AK".  It is certainly possible that AK will use this 15 minutes of fame to become individually notable, at which point we will also need to give her attention with a BLP, but right now she remains a "low-profile individual" and we don't want to encourage non-encyclopedic information such as her early life and her relatives.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me clarify that this split does not depend on how "Amanda Knox" is redirected, the split is a function of the decision of 3 October, and will work well with or without a BLP for AK.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: A "Trials" article just needs to be created and it will inevitably be challenged for deletion, which on the basis of the above discussion will not get consensus. Then those editing MoMK can decide how much detail about the trials they want to leave here. Brmull (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would rather this had waited till after the DRV, but it's a good idea nonetheless. The trial is a separate (although closely related) event to the initial murder and meets WP:EVENT by a long way. There's plenty of content to write a decent article, and it would provide a more logical redirect target for Knox and Sollecito. Reducing the amount of trial-related content in this article would be beneficial too, and in this way could be done without losing any information. 20:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the redirect of Raffaele Sollecito, there is no better target for that redirect than to create this new split.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: apparently we now have a boldly-created article Timeline of the Amanda Knox case, which may or may not affect any split of this page. I still think that a trial article is the way to go, and would suggest that maybe that article should be merged there. Others will no doubt disagree... Alzarian16 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no immediate need to separate the trials from MoMK no matter what the result of the DRV. They are so inextricably linked that to do so would only result in a redundant article. The amount of information that now exists about the trials certainly doesn't call for a split on that basis. However, I do see the need to rename MoMK to "Trials of Amanda Knox and Raphaele Sollecito" and possibly reworking the structure. The trials and aftermath are directly related to MK, but outweigh MK's notability, which indicates to me that both MK and Knox/Sollecito (as individuals) were merely somewhat minor aspects of the main event - the trials. Since I don't believe Knox -clearly a low-profile individual as of now - in any way deserves a standalone article yet, and the MoMK details would more appropriately belong in an article mainly about the trials etc., the title change seems the best action to take right now. Shirtwaist ☎ 07:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

They would not be redundant. There is no reason to include any information about the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the MOMK artilce. A simple line that says they were originally convicted it was overturned with a link would be enough.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support This article would not exist without Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It is time for Wikipedia to finally get this right. If Amanda and Raffaele had not been wrongfully convicted, none of us would have ever heard of Meredith Kercher. Meredith's name has remained in the media for the past 4 years because of the injustice committed against Amanda and Raffaele. Unfortunately people are murdered everyday. All of those victims do not get their own Wikipedia article. This is not my opinion, this is a fact. The story has always been about Amanda and Raffaele. Wrongful convictions cause insufferable damage to all involved. It shows no disrespect to Meredith Kercher to properly report on this case. Step back, look at the big picture and get it right this time. BruceFisher (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hats off to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for making Meredith Kercher famous. --FormerIP (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't their choice. What a moronic comment by you. They had 1427 days stolen from them. Do you honestly think that you would have heard of Meredith Kercher if Guede was arrested the next day and convicted? Stop fighting about guilt or innocence. It's over. It's time to report the truth. BruceFisher (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

There we go again: Simply and plain forum opinions w/o any connection to WP policies, guidelines and standards applied. Party time or what?TMCk (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are now public figures whether anyone likes it or not. There should be a wikipedia entry for their (joint) trial and seperate pages from them as individuals. Dougbremner (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose both new article(s) and rename as neither Knox nor Sollecito are (yet?) notable for anything apart from this case. Also the victim's name in the title of such an article functions as a kind of tribute. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is extremely notable. I should be its own article.Issymo (talk)

Unfortunately this page has attracted a few people who seem unfamiliar with how Wikipedia differs from most media. Maybe this will help. On this site, we don't give people their own articles just for being "public figures" or "celebrities" if they fit better into another topic and we don't write in order to present anyone's "story" as some suggest. We We consider events and their consequences as a whole rather than artificially splitting them, so people get a rounded neutral viewpoint. We write as an educational not a promotional site. If you read the O. J. Simpson murder case (another very high profile murder case with acquittal) you would expect to read a summary of the whole matter on one page, including its trial, aftermath and analysis, and if you check, you will find it so. If it helps, think of Knox, Raffaele and MK herself as simple data, unjudged points on a graph, or figures in a course case study or textbook (for this purpose). Ask what way best educates a student about that data. It may help. Another way to think of the difference is, which way of presenting the topic best educates and informs - not which way best meets the editor's personal views. It means connected items are often on the same page when that helps the topic be fully covered, clear, and minimize repetition. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

These are two different topics. The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito should not be connected to the MOMK. They should be seperarte articles because they are seperate topics. The murder lead to the trial but the trial overwhelmes the MOMK information.Issymo (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

If you studied the case, you would realize that the trial existed directly and only because of the murder. The people tried were tried directly and only because they were the accused of the murder. Like OJ Simpson, just because someone is acquitted or the trial overshadows the murder, is not ever a good reason to split. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ask what way best educates a student" Why ask that? Students are recommended to not use Wikipedia because it is not reliable. Can we stop the lectures now? We know how Wikipedia works. I am sorry that you feel it is "unfortunate" that we are here. BruceFisher (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that all users editing here know how Wikipedia works. Some have edited nothing except this article and have little or no other experience of how articles should look. Others show complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about, wanting the "story" told and the like. A little (or very little) knowledge of editing norms and a strong personal viewpoint on the case is not going to lead to high quality neutral editorial judgment. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does Meredith Kercher have an article? BruceFisher (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Kercher does not have her own article; It's a redirect to this one, the murder case. Welcome to the real world.TMCk (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time for this article to step into the real world. Let me rephrase my question for you to make it a little more clear. Why is there an article detailing Meredith's murder? BruceFisher (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Two reasons: it meets our inclusion criteria (passes WP:NOT and is surely evidenced to meet our general notability guideline), and also as an event it surely meets the criterion of our guideline on event notability as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how clogged up Wikipedia would be if every murder in the world was given an article? We all know why Meredith Kercher's murder has an article. It is due to the controversy created by two people being wrongfully convicted. All of the hype was caused by the fantasy created around Amanda and Raffaele. When you come to that realization then Wikipedia may begin to accurately present the information regarding this case. Until then, no Wikipedia guideline will help. BruceFisher (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I might just know, by now. You're saying that routine news isn't and shouldn't be covered, and I agree. But nobody is likely to assert that this case had just "ordinary" or "routine" coverage, and your "reason" why there is an article is blue sky. Bruce, you really do need to read our guidelines more carefully before commenting, because even after months of involvement, you just now showed two big misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works:

1. Whether the charges were dropped or whether it was a "fantasy" created around two individuals (as you describe it) really wouldn't matter. We cover or not based on "enduring notability" of the topic, because we're a reference work on events, not a media source for tabloids. Even a completely fictional matter like a hoax can be covered if it gained enough attention. Even if an event is "fictional" the attention it gets is not. Of course the murder is far from fictional, and the fact these individuals were the accused for it is also non-fictional.
2. "Accurate presentation" of information is based on reliable sources. These can change, but we write what they show now, not what you think they "ought" to show or what you believe they will (or should) show in future.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know, Wikipedia guidelines!! I have heard it all before. Instead of using common sense you always shout "Wikipedia guidelines." Stop for a minute and look at this case as a real live person, not a Wikipedia robot. The murder of Meredith Kercher would have never been given an article on Wikipedia if the controversy had not been caused. This is a fact that you are ignoring. This fact fits in well with your "guidelines." Wikipedia is not properly structured to handle cases like this one and does a great disservice to the public by attempting to do so. The number one search for Amanda Knox has provided misinformation about this case for 4 years now because of "Wikipedia guidelines." What makes Wikipedia dangerous is the fact that it is often correct, leading readers to believe that all content is correct. Now is the time to do the right thing. Amanda Knox has been found innocent, Not "not guilty," INNOCENT. Stop lecturing on Wikipedia guidelines and look at this case as a real live person. Detailing this case properly fits right into your guidelines. Unfortunately, Amanda Knox is the story. Meredith Kercher was made famous because Amanda Knox was dragged into the nightmare. This is a fact! Wikipedia is nothing more than a media guide when it comes to cases like this. All sources are media related. The media offers you all of the necessary information now to get this right. Now, get it right. BruceFisher (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think with that viewpoint you need to be writing for more subjective media (blogs, newspapers, magazines). The fact is that there has been significant attention (indifferent as to its cause), and AK was central to that attention (whether or not guilty or innocent). Wikipedia is a reference work. Our agreed aim is to summarizes published information neutrally and dispassionately, and to a large extent treating it all as data. In borderline "grey" issues we do allow for human considerations - we remove borderline biographies on request, we remove unsubstantiated claims and unbalanced biographical material, we can decide that some information really isn't central to the topic. But this case isn't any of those. Here, neutrality trumps virtually everything. If you cannot accommodate that or find it hard to adapt, then you may find it easier to pick a different topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Another Wiki veteran that has lost the ability to think on his/her own. if you honestly believe that "neutrality trumps virtually everything" when it comes to this article then you are simply unable to see reality. Wikipedia has not allowed an article for Amanda Knox because you claim that she is only significant because of Meredith Kercher's murder. You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction. So far you have been completely unable to communicate as a human being. You have shown that your capabilities are limited to repeatedly reciting Wikipedia guidelines. This is not a healthy way to create good content. BruceFisher (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

With just a little effort, I think you should be able to refactor your criticism of FT2’s values-weightings and logic without being personal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I have come to realize that no matter how I respond the results are the same so I have decided to just be honest. Even if you disagree with my approach, any clear minded person can see that I am right. BruceFisher (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

But you aren't right. Perhaps you have been too close to the subject to see this objectively. You state "You have it backwards! Meredith Kercher's murder is only significant due to the controversy caused by Amanda Knox's wrongful conviction.". When one looks back at the creation of this article on Nov. 12, 2007, there is absolutely nothing which professes anything about the innocence of Knox & Sollecito...nothing to suggest that they were incorrectly charged. In fact, the early version contains her confession. Same goes for the earliest version of the Amanda Knox article just six days after the murder (here it is). You may have missed the fact that it was the sensational details released by the Italian authorities which made this case notable (Satanic sex orgy gone wrong). Wikipedia does consider sensational murder details to be notable...like Black Dahlia. I don't believe there was a notable pro-innocence movement for Knox until some time later (When?). So, no, the murder was given its own notability due to the lurid details; not the people accused of the crime. That is why we have policies and guidelines lest more of these logic-skewed "clear-minded persons" decide to cast them aside.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Between web, newsprint and general media the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were perhaps the most closely observed legal proceedings in history and there are many legitimate issues that emerged from them that were/are of paramount concern to the international community; the use of LCN DNA as an investigative tool to identify suspects being one example. Other issues, including the remarkable statement at the beginning of the appeal's proceedings and (one would assume) 'after' reading the report of the original trial judge, the appellate Justice announced that the only thing that was certain was that there had been a crime. In a process often cited as one that added unquestionable authority and credibility to the prosecutions case, evidence was obtained, admitted and accepted without rigorous examination as it progressed up the chain of procedural levels and finally to trials that were held specifically to prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. An article is needed to address the nature, mindset and history of the prosecutorial process as it wound it's way thorough these various levels of the courts. Without an examination of this process and the trials themselves it would be impossible to understand why justice for Meredith Kercher has remained elusive as well as how/why Amanda and Raffaele went from witness, to suspect, to criminal defendants who were imprisoned for 4 years before being exonerated in the strongest terms available to the court.Fancourt (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Amanda Knox no has a separate article after a long discussion. Perhaps this suggestion is no longer useful?..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Very useful. I think there will probably need to be two articles, one about the Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and another bio article about Amanda Knox. I think the priority should be on the Trial article and if she writes a book or something the bio article could always be created later.Issymo (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'Support'I fully support splitting this article in to two sections, one for the Murder of Meredith Kercher and one for the Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Considering the controversy on this page alone the trial and appeal and ongoing news coverage of this process deserve to have their own coverage. While I fully support Merdith’s murder having its own page I think that it serves better to her memory to separate the pages rather that to muddy up her memory with travesty of justice that was the first trial. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been exonerating in the first court of appeals and deserve to have the details of the opinion of this court told separately from the propaganda that that has dominated the MoMK article over the past four years. Turningpointe (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See comments above. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and refrence work, not a newpaper, blog or promotion platform. We don't have articles to "serve peoples memory" and we don't make editorial decisions based on what will "muddy up her memory" or to fix up real-world issues such as perceived "travesties of justice". Sorry, but if those are what is asked for, it's the wrong kind of website to request it. Here we deal in neutral, impersonal, cited, reliably sourced, encyclopedic approaches. Factually, the murder and trials are part of the same stream of events, as with many other high profile trials and aquittals. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

'Support' This is long overdue. As Bruce has said, the murder was a tragic but sadly all too common crime and is only in Wikipedia at all because of the inexplicable behaviour of the Perugian authorities who framed two innocent people when they had found the real murderer. The international furore following their villification of Knox and the consequential establishment of an innocence campaign is what makes the case notable. That is a fact. Far more internet searches are made for 'Amanda Knox' than for 'Meredith Kercher' because it is interest in the trial and coverage around it that drives traffic, not interest in the murder per se. NigelPScott (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Good, thanks.Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How do we go about starting the new Trial artilce? One thing we could do is move over all the trial of AK and RS information from MOMK and just start from there. The new article will need new sections. Some suggestions: arrest, retainment, trial-conviction, appeal-acquittal, media impact. Issymo (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Such an article would be likely to be immediately replaced with a redirect back to here, as WP tries very hard to avoid internal content forks. The scope of an article on a murder case would normally include a review of investigations into the murder, and of trials that proceeded from those investigations -- because it makes a lot of sense to cover such tightly-related subjects all in the one place. (For example, consider the Murder of Rachel Nickell, which includes the trial and acquittal of Colin Stagg; or any other article you choose on a noteworthy murder). If a new article is not going to be dismissed immediately as just a content fork, you are going to need to make very clear what it is that the new article is going to contain that would differ from the treatment that would be expected at this article. Jheald (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto Casey Anthony. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I support the creation of a "Trial(s)..." article in principle (I prefer this concept to that of a separate biography on Knox). However, now that Amanda Knox is being expanded from a redirect, how will it be possible both to have a trio of articles by the names Murder of Meredith Kercher, Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox and (Raffaele) Sollecito and Amanda Knox and to deal with the problem of content-forking? The degree of overlap between these three subjects is such that it will be difficult to avoid duplicating information with the existence of more than one spinout article (I have yet to bring the recently created Timeline of the Meredith Kercher murder case into the equation). I too would like to register my dissatisfaction with some of the "arguments" that have been made in support of this proposal - Wikipedia does not select article titles on the basis of how best to tell someone's "story", nor does this debate have anything whatsoever to with whether someone's memory is "served" or "muddied". This is an encyclopaedia, not a memorial. As for the notion that the murder itself is of little or no notability in comparison to that of the surrounding trials controversy, why is it that an article specifically titled "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has existed on Wikipedia ever since the murder occurred in late 2007 (i.e. before the controversy appeared)? Even without the notoriety that the affair has now, the article was kept at AfD in early 2008 (since then it has not been renamed). I think that FT2 hits the nail on the head with his "cause and effect" argument, and consider it far superior to pseudo-arguments that seem to have a lot to do with emotions and little to do with how Wikipedia actually works. SuperMarioMan 16:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
• 'Strong Support' :The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. It’s time. The murder of MK and the prosecution and eventual acquittal of AK are two separate issues and deserve to be treated as such. Except for blatant obstructionism I can’t even imagine why this is considered debatable. Meredith deserves an accurate page dedicated to her untimely death. Amanda and Raffaele deserve a page dedicated to the facts of the flawed investigation and baseless witch trial that followed. The subject is not newsworthy because of Meredith Kercher; it’s newsworthy because it was a perversion of the law orchestrated by an out of control prosecutor. The Kercher family has said it themselves, Meredith has been forgotten. That’s to some degree true because in this story of an unjust crusade to punish an innocent young American woman, AK is the victim. Two crimes and two victims.. Two separate focuses.. require two pages . Tjholme (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Puzzling forensic reference

In the course of reading this article I linked to the Reuters Articlereferenced above and noted a statement about Meredith Kercher in the Reuters piece which led me to re-read a relevant portion of this one:

Under 'Forensic evidence,'in Wikipedia it is stated:

"There were three cuts on her neck as well as bruises suggesting she might have been strangled."

But according to the Reuters account:

"Her half-naked body was found with over 40 wounds and a deep gash in the throat"

The contradiction in the two accounts seems indisputable. I'm not qualified to judge whether Wikipedia is obliged to account for it. (Of course if '40 wounds' has already been covered in previous Talk, I probably missed it.) JWMcCalvin (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I added a cite to hopefully resolve this confusion. Thanks. Brmull (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any contradiction here. The cuts and bruises to the neck constitute those particular injuries that suggest strangulation. This doesn't mean that other injuries were not present. Amandajm (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Time of Postal Police arrival

I removed the 12:35 time for the arrival of the Postal Police. During the first trial, it was shown that the Postal Police arrived after the call to 112, not before as a time of 12:35 implies. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that but a new cite is needed. Brmull (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that heavily disputed? And since we know that the second trial came to different conclusions than the first, that change might not be such a good idea.LedRush (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

12:35 was the time the prosecution said the postal police arrived at the parking garage, before it was known that the CCTV clock was 10-12minutes slow. The revised time was 12:46 which put them at the cottage shortly before 1 pm, which is also when Filomena arrived. Sollecito's defence postulated an even later time based on an erroneous police log, but that didn't work because everyone agrees that Filomena & friends and the postal police arrived at the same time. This is all from the Massei report. Still haven't found another source. Brmull (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have been over this before in one of the nastiest fights I have ever seen on Wikipedia. The compromise that ended the dispute was simply to leave the time out. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the postal police arrival demonstation that proved the Raffaele called the police before they arrived: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/postale.pdf. Issymo (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox - the Untold Story

Does anyone have the information for this documentary to include it in the list on the article?LedRush (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This article [9] seems to be a detailed version of the show (a transcript maybe?) I'm sure it won't please the guilters, but it provides a wealth of summary information for the article. However, it is obviously a pro-Knox piece, and like all of these articles it can't be treated like gospel.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah here's a great line for the article: To Mignini, a staunch Catholic with a medieval mindset, Amanda Knox was a sinner who took part in a satanic orgy that resulted in the murder of an innocent. LOL. Brmull (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

For similar views, see the Prosecutor's Obsessions section in The strange ideas and enduring mysteries of the Kercher case by Peter Popham in the 9 October 2011 edition of The Independent.     ←   ZScarpia   14:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)