Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Allegation: Anni Hindocha (Dewani) murder was a murder for hire

Multiple courts have ruled that it is a proven fact that Anni's killing was a murder for hire.

An attempt is being made to censor this fact from the Wikipedia article by asserting the spurious claim that the Dewani judgment ruled it was *not* a contract killing. Nowhere does the judgement rule that the murder was not a murder for hire. And nowhere does the judgment rule that its findings should be taken as supplanting multiple other courts' finding of fact that the killing was, indeed, a murder for hire.

Furthermore, not only did the Dewani judgement not find the killing was not a murder for hire, it actually *abstains* from making any definitive determination on that subject. In fact, the Dewani judgment takes pains to restrict its ruling to one very narrowly defined question. Namely, whether or not Shrien Dewani was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy (whatever its precise nature happened to be) that led to Anni's death:

"It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences. The only issue to determine is whether the evidence shows that the accused was part of that conspiracy." (quoted from the Dewani judgement, italized emphasis mine).

The current lede paragraph in the "Murder of Anni Dewani" is non-neutral, loaded, rhetoric that a) conceals central facts of the case and b) contains false claims unsupported by the source cited. For these reasons the lede paragraph should be reverted to the neutral recitation of the salient facts of the case which I have previously provided.Lane99 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Might you give a reliable source for a claim in Wikipedia's voice that the killers were hired for the specific purpose of killing a person? Collect (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I don't know what you mean by "Wikipedia's voice". But, yes, the reliable sources which confirm what I've stated above are the court judgements of the three of the conspiracy's participants who were sentenced to prison: Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe, Mr. Mngeni. Each of their courts ruled it was a proven fact that Anni's killing was a murder for hire. For example, Judge Henney writes in "S v Mngeni": "I find that [Mngeni] together with the persons as mentioned in the evidence formed a common purpose to murder...Anni Dewani, after they had conspired to do so. I find [Mngeni] had made himself available at a price...to execute [Anni Dewani]."Lane99 (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Such a 3:1 court decision ratio would pose a real problem in how we describe this. It should be made clear that the three convictions were obtained on this basis, with only the last case refuting it. Samsara 05:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

To be clear,Samsara,it's not 3-1. It's 3-0. No court have ever ruled that Anni's murder was NOT a murder for hire. For it was, as the triers of fact (the courts) have repeatedly found. The Dewani judgement explicitly limited itself to ruling whether or not Shrien Dewani participated in the criminal conspiracy. The judgement expressly declined to make a finding on whether it was or was not a murder for hire.Lane99 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Completely false. As has already been pointed out multiple times to Lane99, the Dewani judgment explicitly details the crimes that the conspirators were proven to have planned; robbery and kidnapping. No mention whatsoever of murder, or "murder for hire".

The "conspiracy" was among those convicted. No court decision has found that any specific other person was involved, nor that there was, in fact, a "murder for hire" as posited initially. There is no valid reason to assert as a fact in Wikipedia's voice that there was a "fifth conspirator." "Wikipedia's voice" means "having a Wikipedia article state something as a fact rather than ascribing the claim to a specific source which is reliable for making statements of fact", by the way. As far as I can tell, those who asserted that there was a "fifth conspirator" were in fact perjuring themselves in their testimony. Collect (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No court decision has found [...] that there was, in fact, a "murder for hire" The court did find exactly that, as pointed out by Lane99 - "I find that the accused had made himself available at a price upon payment of R15 000,00, to be shared between himself and Qwabe, to execute the deceased." [1] Samsara 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct, Samsara. It is a fact that Anni's murder was a planned hit. The trier of fact is the court, and they had found so repeatedly. At least in the rest of the world the trier of fact is the court. Maybe in "Wikiworld" editors take it upon themselves to ignore whatever facts they find inconvenient.Lane99 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of inconvenient facts. Qwabe and Mbolombo were found to have committed perjury, and the Mngeni court's findings were based on that perjury. Both are devastating facts for the argument that Lane99 is trying to make, which is why he ignores them. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Lane99 is stating mistruths. There were not 3 judgements that made such a finding. The convictions of both Qwabe and Tongo occured as a result of Section 105A plea hearings. No judgement was made in either case and no evidence was heard. The court documents were simply formalisations of a plea deal reached between the criminals and the National Prosecuting Authority. Those plea deals were based solely on the later discredited versions of events given by those same criminals and were not verified or tested in any way, let alone subjected to proper cross examination and scrutiny. The NPA and court regretably took the word of the criminals and signed off on the deal, such was their determination to pin the crime on the foreigner - Shrien Dewani. The court in the Mngeni matter did in fact convict Mngeni on the basis that the "murder for hire" story was grounded in truth, and that judgement was based largely on the testimony of two key witnesses - Qwabe and Mbolombo - who were later found to have perjured themselves. In short, the Mngeni judgement was highly questionable and its findings were overturned in the Dewani trial, where the court noted that flawed forensics and perjury had led to Mngeni being wrongly convicted of being the triggerman. If anyone is interested, this article analyses the Mngeni trial in some detail and examines the many anomalies. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

such was their determination to pin the crime on the foreigner I just wish we could keep these off-the-cuff commentaries out of this - they're not referenceable and they really neither belong nor help. Please just stick to the meat. Expanding on that, it's not our place to do original research on whether or not the trial was conducted properly. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but we just follow the sources - that's what Wikipedia does. Samsara 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Will try avoid in future. This argument re: murder for hire has been done to death. Bottom line; one court's judgement was superceded by a later court's judgement, rendering the first judgement irrelevant. That's not original synthesis; the words of the judge in the Dewani judgement are scathing toward the findings made in the Mngeni matter. It would be grossly irresponsible for Wikipedia to even think of giving credence to a story told by criminals, simply because one court irresponsibly and erroneously took those criminals' word at face value. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of contributors struggle with the idea that we present things as they are (reported in RS, see before). So if bad findings were made in the first trial, we can state what they are and that they were superceded. It's not rocket science, but all too often people want to bring their POV into it and suppress some part of the story. Samsara 17:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Samsara,the Dewani judgement does not supercede any of the other court judgments. To the contrary, the Dewani judgment explicitly states it is restricting it finding to whether or not Shrien Dewani participated in the criminal conspiracy that led to Anni Dewani's death. The reason anyone claiming the Dewani judgement "supercedes" other court rulings does not provide any quotation to prove it is because you can't prove something which is a lie. You can only disingenously assert it and hope nobody calls you on it.Lane99 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who has a basic understanding of the English language can understand the S v Dewani judgement and the fact that it over-rides the findings made by the court in S v Mngeni. Lane99 mentions a lack of "quotation to prove it" because he is still trying to rely on the mythical "magic words" argument that has been discussed ad nauseum on this page. The Dewani judgement is very clear and unequivocal about what credibility can be ascribed to the "murder for hire" story. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. As has already been pointed out, this case is a funny one because the normal reliable sources (the media) played a significant role in the wrongful pursuit of an innocent man and that same media have been ubiquitously reluctant to admit that they got it wrong and should never have given such weight to a story told by criminals. Hence it is difficult to find reliable sources who analysed and disected the various court findings with any degree of diligence. Hence the need to rely to some extent on the court documents themselves. Turning to the issue of weight. Lane99 is a disruptive editor who sought not to discuss and find consensus on this "murder for hire" issue, but attempted on eight separate occasions to insert it directly into the article's lede paragraph, no less. If you follow this talk page and indeed this section you will see that admin Robert McClenon had to warn him multiple times about the fact that continued attempts to state the "murder for hire" story as fact constituted a serious WP:BLP violation and would be dealt with accordingly. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Otoh, I recall that the media found no fewer than four separate witnesses describing discord in the relationship, as well as other evidence pointing to an unconventional life approach (I don't think I need to spell it out, you doubtless know what I'm referring to). I'm not sure one can blame the media when the pieces of a riveting story fall into their laps quite so conveniently. Anyway, until we have a source reviewing the media's role, we can't write about that. When we do, it could be an important addition for the article to be comprehensive. Samsara 18:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. It is still true that pushing the murder-for-hire theory is a serious BLP violation. It is true that, in S. v. Dewani, the court didn't use "magic words" to formally set aside any previous finding of murder for hire. The court didn't need to do that, because the murder-for-hire theory was so completely demolished that it didn't need to be set aside. The murder-for-hire theory was based entirely on the confessions of lying criminals. South African criminal law is based on common law (not on civil law). As a result, court proceedings are adversarial, not investigative. A court only actually is a reliable finder of fact when there is an adversarial proceeding. The fact that the courts accepted false confessions is not so much a remaining finding of fact but an indication of how difficult it is to get lies untold. If User:Lane99 wishes to pursue the murder-for-hire theory, I will restate my original question. Who hired the murderers? There has only been one person named, and he was acquitted because the case against him consisted of lies. If anyone really thinks that this is still a murder-for-hire, why isn't there an investigation to find the so-far-unidentified arranger of the murder? Either Shrien Dewani did it, and we know he didn't, or there is an unidentified arranger out there, and failure to pursue him is a further miscarriage of justice, or the whole murder-for-hire idea is based on lies. Drop the murder-for-hire thing unless there are reliable sources about looking for the unknown arranger. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Robert, again I'm reading here that you're keen to present a conclusion, but Wikipedia articles aren't whodunnits. We can present the investigation and trial with all their potentially errant ways, and we're under no obligation to present a definitive conclusion. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, an open case is an open case. But it depends on what RS say, and then we rephrase what they say with due weight. With sufficient skill and effort, all of this can be achieved without getting BLP headaches. Not to be misunderstood - what I'm saying is we need to be good at paraphrasing exactly to the point. There should be nothing left unsaid that needs saying, and exactly those things excluded that are just too marginal. If that's labouring the point too much, forgive me. Samsara 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you give any source other than the statements of convicted criminals and the botched police investigation? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dewani judgment does state that there was a conspiracy to commit kidnapping and robbery. It does not state that there was a conspiracy to commit murder, let alone that hey were hired to commit murder. Even Lane99 admits that the Dewani judgment abstains from making any such determination. The Dewani verdict is the only verdict that is still credible, and it is silent on murder-for-hire. The Dewani judgment is the only judgment that resulted from a common-law adversary proceeding, and common law is meant to be an adversary system, not an inquisitorial system. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of restating that previous courts accepted (did not so much rule as accepted based on confessions) that the murder was a murder-for-hire? I see three possible ways to interpret a statement that it was a murder for hire. First, since the only suspect for arranging the murder was Shrien Dewani, and he was acquitted, his acquittal may be a miscarriage of justice, and he is guilty. Second, since the only suspect in the murder for hire was acquitted, if it was a murder for hire, there should be a new inquiry into the mystery killer. Third, it wasn't a murder for hire after all, and that judgment was based on lies. As to the first interpretation, we will not, must not, and cannot go there, and I am prepared to see that anyone who tries to use Wikipedia to reopen the case against Shrien Dewani is sanctioned for BLP violations. As to the second interpretation, I see no one trying to go down that path. That leaves us with the third, or with the fact that the continuing miscarriage of justice is the failure to search for the mystery arranger. Since I don't see any push to search for the mystery arranger, I suggest that we drop the murder for hire argument, which, in the absence of a search for the mystery arranger, is just a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared to take any further efforts to push the murder-for-hire theory (especially in the absence of a search for the mystery murder arranger) either to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I am glad that Robert McClenon picked up the glaring anomaly in Lane99's comment. In much the same way as the "murder for hire" story makes no sense, nor does Lane99's argument. He has tried to claim the "murder for hire" as a "proven fact" yet his very own quotation from the Dewani judgement shows precisely the opposite! That quote explicitly identifies the crimes that the court accepted as "proven facts"; robbery and kidnapping. No mention whatsoever of "murder for hire" being proven or accepted as fact.

Here is the quote again: "It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"

It should also be noted that this quote appears towards the beginning of the 87 page judgement as a precursor to analysing the evidence in the case. By the end of that judgement, the court's findings were made abundantly clear. Whilst Lane99 argues that the court was confined to making a finding on one solitary issue (the guilt or otherwise of Shrien Dewani), the reality is that the 87 page judgement made a multitude of findings relating to the evidence and testimony heard. By way of example, the court made the finding that Mngeni could not have been the shooter and that the previous court had made a false determination based on flawed ballistics and the perjury of Mbolombo and Qwabe. These issues were clearly not directly related to whether Shrien Dewani was or wasn't involved, yet the court made clear its finding. Numerous similar unequivocal findings were made in relation to the "murder for hire" story, which dispeled any disingenuous notion that the "murder for hire" theory retained credibility. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead

Presumably no one really has a problem with the first or third paras, so it's just the second that Lane99 sees as editorialising:
Based on the later discredited confessions of three of the crime's perpetrators, who were found to have committed perjury, South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that Dewani had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. Following a long legal battle, Dewani was extradited from the UK to South Africa to face trial. He was exonerated, with the Western Cape High Court ruling in December 2014 that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against him.
Well, given that there are BLP issues re. Shrien, I take the view that the article should make clear that he's innocent, so I can't see a problem with the last sentence. There was also a long extradition legal battle, and it is a salient point, so that belongs. The first sentence is, I'd suggest, a reasonable summary of the situation, but I'd be happy to see the first two clauses removed, if that's what people want.
Key point. As far as I know, Shrien has been found to be innocent of the charges, not just acquitted at trial when a judge ruled the evidence presented in court was insufficient to sustain a conviction which, whilst true, is (I'd suggest) designed to imply otherwise. Bromley86 (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not worry too much about how Lane99 labels the issue. Lane99 represents the views of a tiny minority fringe and is now indefinitely topic banned due to his inserting that same loaded version of the lede on nine separate occasions, with the same cut and paste edit summary deriding the previous content as "editorialised". Your summation in the last sentence is wholly correct, Bromley86. Lane99 had been intent on inserting his version of the lede, because the Wiki article could have become a tool to lend credibility to libelious allegations made elsewhere on the internet. In effect he wanted to be able to say "even Wikipedia recognises that the crime was in fact a murder for hire - no other person could have ordered it - ipso facto Shrien Dewani was actually guilty of arranging the murder". Clearly such behaviour would constitute an obtuse aberration of logic, a distortion of reality, a cloaking of surrounding facts and an attempt to pervert Wikipedia's core values. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts, as Lane99 has been blocked from editing the article perhaps it is time for you as well to drop the stick in concerns to that user. It is time to talk aboit any issues you have with the article instead of going on and on about Lane99. I am just telling you this as a suggestion to you as you yourself also risk the same sanctions if you are not careful. And we do not want that, do we. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

[2] Lane99 has edited the article at 20:14 30 November. I suggest that Lane99 seems not to believe rules apply to himself. Collect (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest a couple of minor amendments to final paragraph of the lede. Current wording is misleading and incomplete as it tends to give the impression that Tongo, Qwabe and Mngeni were only convicted of the single crime of murder. Given the circumstances of the case it is of significant importance to state the other major crimes that they were convicted of committing. I would suggest that the final paragraph be amended to read as below. Feedback from other editors?

In December 2010, Zola Tongo pleaded guilty to murder, kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and obstructing the administration of justice and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. In August 2012, Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to kidnapping, robbery and murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. In November 2012, Xolile Mngeni pleaded not guilty, but was convicted of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder, and sentenced to life in prison.

References

Comments, Moderated Discussion, and Comments About Moderated Discussion

This article is now under moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It will come off page protection later today. Please continue discussions about this article there. I will try to watch this discussion, but I may overlooked requests made here. I see that requests have been made about trials. Please clarify, at the dispute resolution noticeboard, whether those are requests to create new sections, or to create new articles. I intend to be resolving the controversy over the inclusion of the 2013 Panorama (TV series) episode with a Request for Comments and would like to know whether we need any other requests for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Any editors who have issues about this article but have not addressed them yet at the dispute resolution noticeboard are invited to add themselves as parties and to raise their issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, two tags were applied to this article. One was an NPOV tag, questioning its neutrality. That tag will remain until the neutrality is resolved, probably by the RFC process. However, the other was a tag saying that this article fails to distinguish fact from fiction, and should be rewritten according to the fiction guidelines. Since this article is fact, that is the wrong tag. I will be removing it when the article comes off page protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make any controversial edits to this article after it comes off page protection. (Minor edits, such as correction of typos, are fine.) Take those requests to the dispute resolution noticeboard so that we can address them by moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Since it has came off page protection, Dewanifacts has made many edits that are controversial. Now what?Lane99 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at the dispute resolution noticeboard failing the dispute resolution. Requests for Comments are the one remaining content dispute resolution vehicle. Conduct disputes can be taken to WP:ANI, but I hope that is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:24, 23 August 2015

Assume the above comment is Rober McClenon's. I am prepared to argue my claim that Panorama is biased and unreliable, and would like to proceed with a RFC. I am unsure of the next specific step I should, therefore, take at this moment?Lane99 (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, apologies if I have misunderstood your direction. I am new to Wikipedia and was careful to act in a way that I thought was totally in line with your request to not make controversial edits. I interpreted your comments to mean that I should use the DRN if I was proposing new articles being created for the trials of Mngeni and Qwabe. That was not my intent at all, so I did not see anything controversial about simply creating headings on the existing page since the page had come off edit protection. I did not edit the Panorama section content, except to move it into the "Media Coverage" heading.

With the exception of one single edit, I don't believe any of my edits are/were controversial. They merely state facts of the case and the Court's findings and conclusions. The only edit that was controversial was the amendment to the opening paragraph of the article (that Lane99 has already reversed). My stated reason for editing this paragraph is that this line is so grossly misleading and deceptive that I feel that the matter should be discussed and resolved on the Talk page first, before permitting it to sit even another day on the main page. It directly contradicts the findings of the Western Cape High Court. Furthermore it parrots the false misleading propaganda that continues to be pumped out by fringe groups who do not accept the court's judgement and continue to attempt to paint Mr Dewani as guilty, despite overwhelming evidence and am emphatic Court Judgement that cleared him of all involvement. I would imagine that Wikipedia is not a tool that is suited to such a purpose? Dewanifacts (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for cooperating with the moderated discussion process. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question of whether Wikipedia is a tool that may be used for the primary purpose of countering "false misleading propaganda" is that Wikipedia is not a tool that should be used to advance a specific agenda. Read The guideline on What Wikipedia is not. There appears to have been editing on on at least two "sides" with at least two agendas. There may have been great wrongs committed. In fact, there was at least one, the murder itself. However, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Thank you for asking after the fact. However, I had asked that discussion of changes to the article be conducted at the moderated discussion page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I would dispute the suggestion that there are "two agendas" at play here. On the one side there are editors - including myself - who think that the page should reflect the events of this case all the way through to the actual outcome of the trial of Shrien Dewani, which saw all charges against him dropped. The only "agenda" is that of those who fundamentally disagree with the outcome of that trial, and wish to persist with insinuations that he is, in fact, guilty. It is not standard Wikipedia practice to continue to ascribe guilt where a suspect has been cleared in a court of law. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, thanks I will read those guides. I'm still a bit unclear as to how future edits should be made. this is what I understand from your comments.1. Post suggested amendment to TALK page. 2. Wait for comment from others. 3. If no-one objects, then I am free to go ahead and make the edits. If others object, then we to and fro and aim to come to agreement on whether some/all of the proposed edits should be made to the page. Once agreement reach, I make the edits. If agreement cannot be reached, then I should post the matter on the DRN. If that fails to resolve dispute, then attempt an RFC. Is this an accurate summation of the process? So no edits aside from minor ones can ever be made straight into the article? Dewanifacts (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No. First, I have failed discussion at DRN. That topic is closed. There is nowhere to discuss at DRN. The procedure should have been to propose any amendments at DRN, and wait for comments, and if there was disagreement, RFCs could be used. That is the procedure when DRN is in progress. Discussion should, in that case, normally be at DRN rather than the talk page, because DRN in that case has the benefit of a neutral moderator. However, you are asking what the procedure is now. Now that DRN has failed, the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle is back in effect, except that, when an article is known to be controversial, and this one is, discussion is usually the best first step. So: I would still recommend against making major edits to the article without discussion, because they are likely to be reverted, or just to cause controversy. Since this article is now controversial, my advice would be that any major edits should be proposed on the article talk page. If there is no disagreement, make the edit. If there is disagreement, since it appears that discussion isn't working, the best step, in my opinion, is the RFC process. As I said, I will help word RFCs neutrally, and to advise on policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Appreciating your attempts at help, I refrained from making edits the past two days. The Single Purpose Account/COI account has in the meantime made even further edits which are controversial, non-neutral and agenda driven. I have now reverted the most egregious. I suggest the best recourse now is to return the article to "page protection" in the version that is was when last put on page protection. And to see if we can get an consensus for how future edits should be made. As the article stands now, most revisions added by the Single Purpose Account are non-neutral, and are slanted towards advancing a particular agenda. P.S. I would have UNDERLINED the above, instead of the more loud BOLDING, if I knew how to underline. I don't see an underline button.Lane99 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with, and resent the suggestions above. Please substantiate your claims of "non neutral" and "agenda driven". This is about the 7th time this editor has made generalistic accusations of other editors and we still have no substantiation or proof of what exactly this editor views as being non neutral or problematic. Most of my revisions were suggested on this talk page and received no opposition whatsoever (please scroll up to verify this). My edits were largely direct quotes and summarisations of court findings. I challenge this editor to either point out the problems one by one, or to cease making generalised accusations. There is absolutely no slant, bias or subjectivity in my Article revisions. They present the facts as heard and ruled upon in open courts. This article was in a state of disarray before I made a good faith attempt to introduce some structure which I believe has benefited the Article and set it on the right track. I encourage all editors, including user:Lane99 to make whatever revisions they see fit but I ask that matters of factual record not be altered or removed without discussion on the Talk page. I would also argue strenuously against reverting the page to what it was a week ago; it was loaded with grossly misleading false information that both slandered Mr Dewani and misrepresented the facts and evidence that came out in court. The crime was referred to purely as a murder (with scant mention of the other cirmes committed asgainst Anni Dewani), there was no detailing of the plea bargains that incentivised the criminals to make up their "murder for hire" story, no details about why the Judge dismissed charges against Dewani, no details about the Judge's findings and conclusions about the many lies told by Mbolombo, Tongo and Qwabe. Plea hearing and trial of Qwabe and Mgneni were lumped together into one misleading and barely detailed heading. It was a complete mess........Dewanifacts (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert, the fundamental problem we have in this case is that there are at least two editors who disagree with the outcome of Shrien Dewani's trial, and continue to push the idea that he is ultimately responsible for his wife's murder. As such they will always object to any proposed changes that either older content in the article that already is in line with their opinion but has not been amended in light of subsequent events (e.g. Lane99's reaction to my changes to the grossly misleading claim in the lead), or indeed any new content that reinforces the actual outcome of the case, i.e. all charges against Shrien Dewani being dropped.

In many respects this is rather bizarre inversion of the usual miscarriage of justice, in that we are not talking about a case of a conviction about which there are doubts, but rather some people being disgruntled about someone original regarded as a suspect not being convicted. As such there are serious BLP issues if this article is being used as a pro-guilt Trojan horse. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Nick Cooper above. The opening paragraph should not be the place to push a certain narrative which has since been tested and rejected elsewhere. That is far from neutral and highly misleading. It implies that Shrien Dewani was responsible for his wife's murder. Readers would then have to scroll right down to the bottom sections to discover that he was is fact completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and did not have a case to answer on those charges. Why try and shoe-horn in an erroneous finding of the court in S V Mngeni into the opening paragraph summary and state it like it is a fact? I think the motivations to do so speak for themselves. To avoid confusion the finding of the court in S v Mngeni should simply be noted in the Trial of Xolile Mngeni section which would also be the correct place to reference the Mngeni judgement currently at footnote [1]. In the same way that the conclusions of the court in S v Dewani should be in the Trial of Shrien Dewani section. Surely that would be a neutral way of presenting the very different findings of the courts in the respective trials. The Mngeni judgement alone is not an accurate, or current, determination of the fate of Anni Dewani and Wikipedia shouldn't be representing it as such. Can we reach consensus to implement the above suggestion as being a neutral representation of the situation? --St.Barbra (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree that the late Xolile Mngeni was convicted (per Section 51 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997) of a murder which was planned or premeditated, and committed by a group of persons acting in furtherance of a common purpose or conspiracy?Factsnotlies1 (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Everyone agrees that that was the finding of the court in S v Mngeni. The article has now been edited to reflect this. You will find it in the section of the article titled "Trial of Xolile Mngeni and surrounding events". Dewanifacts (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft RFC: Validity of Statement About Murder for Hire

Draft RFC: Validity of Statement About Murder for Hire

I am about to post the following RFC:

Is the statement that the murder of Anna Dewani was found to be a murder for hire acceptable to be presented as neutral point of view in the voice of Wikipedia?

I am willing to change the wording of how the RFC is stated if there are suggestions that changes would improve its neutrality. I am also willing to add more than two options, as to how to present the murder-for-hire theory.

However, in the absence of other comments, this RFC will be posted with 36 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that "voice of Wikipedia" is what we're debating. Is anyone suggesting this? Samsara 06:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The real issue here is not whether a court accepted that the crime was a "murder for hire". The issue is one of due weight, and how this court's finding should be presented in the Wikipedia article. To date, Lane99 has tried 8 times to insert the factoid into the article's lede paragraph, an approach which has been unequivocally rejected by consensus. Upon reflection, I agree with Lane99 that the court's finding in S v Mngeni should arguably be mentioned as it is part of the history of the case, however it should be mentioned only in the section on the trial of Mngeni and it should be qualified to reflect the fact that it was superceded and rejected by the findings of another court. I would suggest that the final 3 paragraphs of the "Trial of Xolile Mngeni and surrounding events" section be amended to something like the below:

“ Before testifying in the Mngeni trial, key witness Monde Mbolombo read out a prepared statement confessing to lying in his two previous affidavits and promised to tell the truth when testifying.

On 19 November 2012, Mngeni was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in jail. The court accepted Qwabe and Mbolombo's version of events claiming that the crime was a contract killing. Mngeni was ruled to have been the person who shot Anni Dewani. The findings of this court were superceded by the judgement in the later trial of Shrien Dewani, where the court found that the earlier determinations had been made on the basis of flawed forensics, and perjury of the two key witnesses Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Monde Mbolombo

In July 2014, it was confirmed that a medical parole application had been made for Mngeni who was terminally ill with a brain tumour. He was denied parole, and died in jail on 18 October 2014.

”

Dewanifacts (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The "voice of Wikipedia" problem is that one editor keeps wanting to insert that the fact that a court stated that this was a murder for hire, and then the same editor argues that it is still an uncontroverted judicial finding of fact that this was a murder for hire. It is true that in S v Dewani, the court didn't explicitly overrule that finding, but they didn't have to do so, because the only suspect for the murder for hire was Shrien Dewani, and the case against him fell apart as based on lying criminals. We need either to establish consensus that "murder for hire" cannot be mentioned as a finding of fact, which is to make the statement from a supposedly neutral point of view that it was a murder for hire, or to get an administrator to use ArbCom discretionary sanctions to topic-ban the editor. If anyone would prefer to go to arbitration enforcement based on the BLP violation against Shrien Dewani, that is all right with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus seems against it now, so I'm not sure that there's any value in taking the additional steps you're suggesting. An RfC will just find the same consensus we already have - a waste of volunteers' time imo. Samsara 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In that case, this thread is a final warning to User:Lane99 that even one more attempt to insert the finding of fact language in the voice of Wikipedia will be taken to arbitration enforcement. Since Lane99 hasn't suggested that there is a mystery arranger still out there, any continuing insistence on inserting the "murder-for-hire" language other than as a discredited finding, is a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A few comments above, I suggested that for the sake of completeness the court's acceptance of the contract killing story in the the S v Mngeni trial should be mentioned in the Mngeni trial section. The suggested wording places that finding in the appropriate context with the appropriate weight and I believe stays well within BLP policy. Is there any objection to this proposed edit? If not, then someone should go ahead and make it. That should forever put to bed the "murder for hire" issue. Dewanifacts (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked at it briefly when you posted it, and nothing stood out as needing adjustment. Would be good to hear at least one more voice on this. Samsara 07:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I've made the edit in the hope that it may quell the disruptive editing and attempts to insert the information into the lede. Obviously if anyone takes issue with the edit I've made, please revert. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Samsara A rogue editor (Advocate BG) is making changes to this article that defy consensus. What is the process to warn this editor against the approach being taken and revert the edits until consensus has been gained? Dewanifacts (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Advocate BG You are attempting to insert material that constitutes a grave WP:BLP violation into the lede paragraph. If you want to propose changes, do so on this talk page and once consensus has been achieved you will be most welcome to make the amendments to the article. Consensus does not have to be unanimous, but the thrust of the views put forward by the various editors taking part need to be in alignment. You will be reported for sanctions if you continue to attempt to insert libellous material into the article. You appear to have only created a Wikipedia account today. Good faith is assumed however if your very first action upon joining Wikipedia is to start making controversial article edits (that violate WP:BLP) you can expect to be treated rather harshly by other editors. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Collect maybe you can advise?Dewanifacts (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Probability of the "new user" in such a case actually being a "new user" is under 1%. See WP:SPI. Collect (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Discretionary sanctions

I have explicitly placed this page under BLP discretionary sanctions. New editors are reminded that BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and taking up the positions of topic-banned editors may result in blocks. Editing the article against consensus may also result in blocks. Experienced editors can help out by placing discretionary sanctions notices on new editors' talk pages and notifying admins if problems persist. Bishonen and myself are familiar with the situation so you may want to approach us first. Please provide diffs if you do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency and so that all editors are aware of what is spurring this flurry of sockpuppet activity, it is likely being driven by the hysterical posts of rabid pro-guilt fringe group "justice4anni" who have been tweeting furiously that this Wikipedia article is "biased" because it doesn't permit their BLP violating views to be inserted. Random journalists and even Jimmy Wales are being tweeted and fed the completely false unsubstantiated line that "a PR agent for Shrien Dewani" is contributing to the Wikipedia article. Prominent "justice4anni" member afd has contributed to this article in the past. It is curious that "justice4anni" does not discuss what they perceive as issues on this talk page but instead have gone down the avenue of slagging Wikipedia on Twitter. Tweets can be seen here.

"justice4anni"'s antics are being ably assisted by topic banned editor Lane99 with tweets such as this one Dewanifacts (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts your above comment is discourteous and inflammatory. Your mention of my contributions in this context is entirely unnecessary, and a direct violation of WP:NPA which states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Your private war with the 'justice4anni' group should have no place on this talk page. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia guidelines WP:GF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:HAR and refrain from such ad hominem attacks in future.afd (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi afd, apologies if it came across as discourteous. Was not the intent. Where is the inflammatory part? You were mentioned only in the context that as a current Wikipedia contributor, it is curious that you don't discuss your concerns on this talk page, but rather use your group's libelous social media pages to publish wholly false, unsubstantiated allegations against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Perhaps you can address that issue, rather than seeking to deflect attention onto others. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:MEAT and WP:CAN. Aside from making scurrilous allegations, the latest posts on your group's social media pages are direct violations of the above Wiki guidelines and constitute grossly inappropriate sock puppetry, meat puppetry, campaigning, vote stacking and stealth canvassing. They also appear to be almost verbatim replicas and endorsements of the words of banned editor Lane99/Noanon. All screenshots are preserved - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/canvassing-sock-puppetry-and-meat-puppetry/ Dewanifacts (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts you wrote above: "you don't discuss your concerns on this talk page, but rather use your group's libelous social media pages to publish wholly false, unsubstantiated allegations against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors". Those are wholly false unsubstantiated allegations by you, concerning my conduct. Your intent is quite clearly to imply that I am responsible for false and libelous content on social media, and thus to disparage and discredit any opinion I might choose to express on this talk page. I invite you to substantiate your allegations by citing even a single posting or comment I have placed online. If you can't do that, you owe me an apology. afd (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

afd I cannot prove that it was you who typed the social media messages, therefore I apologise for implying that you personally typed them. The unfortunate reality for you is that you are a prominent member of a group who are propagating the aforementioned Wikipedia violations via libellous social media accounts. You are also that group's primary voice here on Wikipedia. Therefore your views are unavoidably coloured by that association. You don't deny your association with that group, do you? Do you have any thoughts or comments on the meat/sock puppetry and vote stacking attempts being employed by that group in their attempts to disrupt the editing of this Wikipedia article? To your credit, I am of the view that you are the most tempered spokesperson for that group and your style contrasts with their normal hysterical tone. With best regards. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts My contributions (such as they are) to Wikipedia are my own. I am not a voice for or representative of justice4anni, or any group for that matter. Would you please simply stick to the issues under discussion here, rather than repeatedly (as in stuck record) making irrelevant and incorrect assertions about my relationship to other groups and users outside Wikipedia. Thankyou. afd (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments and Suggested Restriction

I would like to thank admins User:Bishonen and User:NeilN for taking action to deal with this mess. I became aware of this article and its controversy in August 2015, when it came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I tried to mediate it, but had to fail the mediation, because editors continued editing the article while I was trying to conduct moderated discussion. It doesn't appear to have improved in the past months. The conduct of the pro-guilt faction (trying to imply that the Shrien Dewani needs to be retried, or whatever) is appalling. They aren't the only editors behaving badly, just the worst ones. The appearance of new recruited anti-Dewani editors is suggestive of sockpuppetry. I would suggest that it may be appropriate to impose a 30-day/500-edit restriction on the article and this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also to you Robert McClenon for your valiant efforts to assist. I think you should give yourself more credit. You didn't fail. I don't think the article is a mess at all. To the contrary, the article is in significantly better shape than it was in August. It has been pared down to be an informative, neutral, factual and well sourced record of the tragic event to which it pertains. In my view, the current level of semi protection should be given a chance before resorting to more draconian restrictions that may impede the progress of the article, given the fact that this story is not yet concluded and many unknowns remain. Dewanifacts (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain what I meant about failure. I did not mean that my effort at mediation was a failure in the usual sense. I failed the mediation in that I declared it to be a failure. If an instructor writes "F" on a paper, the instructor did not fail; the instructor failed the paper. (You can also say that the student failed.) I figuratively put an "F" on the record of the mediation. That is what I meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Robert McClenon. Understood. The mediations in question were doomed to fail. How could they have succeeded? An editor who will re-insert the same BLP violation nine times despite being asked not to do so, is unlikely to suddenly turn around and admit that the facts don't support their stated position. Mediation is to some extent reliant on the parties behaving rationally. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, mediation sometimes fails because one of the editors is stubborn. We still have to try. Sometimes mediation works.Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As to semi-protection, which is a 4-day/10-edit restriction, I agree that it is worth giving it a chance first, as long as the semi-protection is for months rather than the usual week or two weeks, and as long as the monitoring admins, including Bishonen and NeilN continue to impose topic-bans on BLP-violating editors, and as long as constructive editors continue to template BLP-violating editors, and as long as sockpuppetry is dealt with by blocks. However, in other cases where there has been problematic off-wiki coordination, it has been necessary to go to 30-day/500-edit restrictions, and this case is subject to problematic off-wiki coordination. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of a 30 days/500 edit restriction, does a qualifying editor need to fulfil both the 30 day and 500 edit requirements? Or just one of them? Dewanifacts (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of them. The same as for 4/10. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Legal Opinion

I have requested a legal commentary at WP:WikiProject Law from a common-law lawyer as to whether there really was a judicial finding that the murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. It is true that a court accepted a confession that the murder was a murder for hire, but the subsequent trial found that the confession contained lies. It is my understanding that common-law courts, unlike civil-law courts, do not make findings of fact sua sponte, because common law is adversarial, and a confession is not an adversary proceeding, so gives rise to no findings. (Civil law courts may conduct investigations, but a common law court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defendant.) The only adversarial proceeding, and therefore the only proceeding that found facts, was the trial of Shrien Dewani, which found that the criminals lied. (Most of the editors at that project who are lawyers are probably common-law lawyers, since most Anglophone countries are common-law countries, although it is true that there could be English-fluent European civil lawyers at that project.) In any case, I have requested a legal analysis, which, if it is as I think it will be, will further establish that the sockpuppets are posting nonsense. Once again, thanks to User:Bishonen. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quantifying Consensus: Do you agree the Anni Hindocha article is biased and should be corrected?

Collapsing RfC opened by blocked sockpuppet. Please don't add anything more to this section. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"It is clear to me the "Murder of Anni Dewani" article (as it appears on December 5, 2015) omits or downplays important facts about the murder, and is written from a non-neutral and partisan point of view." Two questions: (1) Yes or no, do you agree with the above statement? (2) If you answered yes to question 1: yes or no, do you further agree the current (as of December 5) lede section is particularly biased and should be replaced by the lede section written by Advocate BG (as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&oldid=693109604)?Noanon (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC) See above: "New editors are reminded that BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and taking up the positions of topic-banned editors may result in blocks." Another BLP-violating "new" user refusing to drop the same old stick. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 04:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC). Think you meant "same old shtick". Which, in this case, translates from the Yiddish to: insisting that Wikipedia report on the murder without bias or spin. Something that Bishonen continues to flout Wikipedia's stated standards in disallowing.AHindocha (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (1) Yes, I agree with that statement. (2) The referenced section by "Advocate BG" is better than the current entry. It should be clear to anyone who actually bothers to read the court judgment, that "acquitted" is a more accurate description of the outcome than "exonerated". The court found there was insufficient evidence to convict, but the judgment record falls short of declaring Shrien Dewani to be totally innocent. Judge Traverso commented: "Regrettably, there are many unanswered questions about what exactly happened on the fateful night". A balanced article should reflect the fact that Shrien Dewani has provided differing and conflicting accounts of what happened, and his version of events as presented in his "plea explanation" was never tested under cross examination. It is a very difficult article to get right. There are WP:BLP issues concerning both Shrien Dewani and the murder victim Anni Hindocha (aka Dewani), so there are constraints on what can be reasonably included. It is also problematic, that the mainstream media coverage has been influenced to an unknown degree by media consultants hired by the Dewanis, such as Max Clifford. A full frank and fearless discussion would include the possibility of dishonesty and corruption involving parties on both sides of the case, but that is obviously not going to happen in the usual reliable sources. afd (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Your primary problem here, alas, is that you quite appear to be a "single purpose account" from the get-go on this article and at the mediation, with only one single edit in 2011 not relating to this article, and every other of your 54 total edits being Dewani-related. With warm regards, I fear that your post here is not going to alter the clear consensus on this article. Collect (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Thankyou Collect. Do I have a "problem"? Why? I express my views and give reasons in support. I really do appreciate people who address what is said, rather than who said it. afd (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Hi afd, unfortunately your analysis is disingenuous. Your comment that the judgement in the Dewani matter "falls short of declaring Shrien Dewani totally innocent" seems to ignore the fact that South African courts (like most adverserial courts) cannot ever declare a defendant "innocent". The only verdicts available are "guilty" and "not guilty". Notwithstanding, the labyrinth of lies told by the criminals in this case made it abundantly clear that their contract killing story was fabricated to falsely implicate Mr Dewani. The judgement reflects this and is as close to a pronouncement of innocence as one can see in a court judgement. Dewani's version of events was never tested because the court found that he had no case to answer. Nothing to defend. No credible evidence whatsoever linking him to the crime. Given those circumstances, why would the Wikipedia article suggest or imply otherwise? The judge's comments regarding unanswered questions imply that the real perpetrators know significantly more than the incoherent lies they told in court. It is disingenuous in the extreme to claim the judge's comment to be an indication that the exonerated person still has questions to answer. Your comment on mainstream media coverage attempts to imply that said coverage was somehow in favour of the exonerated husband. A startling implication, given the media's role in persecuting him for four years with relentless biased coverage. The reality is that whatever PR damage control the Dewani family may have attempted to effect via the notorious Max Clifford, was short lived over a matter of weeks, wholly unsuccessful and backfired spectacularly. You imply that there are WP:BLP issues with Anni Dewani. What are they? This article as it currently stands, treats Anni Dewani with the utmost respect. It is well known that the exonerated person had bisexual dalliances that were not previously known to his wife and family and that he understandably sought to keep private, albeit unsuccessfully. He was not on trial for being "dishonest". Nor was he on trial for his sexuality or his failings as a husband. He was on trial for murder and that trial was halted because no credible evidence whatsoever linked him to that crime. That being the case, why would the Wikipedia article delve into salacious details of his private life when he had no case to answer? Wikipedia is not the place for a full, frank and fearless discussion. If it was, such a discussion would focus not on the handful of minor inconsistencies in the exonerated person's statements, but rather on the corruption and complicity of the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority in framing a crime victim, whilst allowing the real perpetrators to be rewarded for their perjury and their roles in this crime. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Dewanifacts - Let me clarify - I mentioned WP:BLP issues intending only to emphasise that the article should respect sensitivities of both the Hindocha and Dewani families. afd (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC) afd I may be wrong on this, but my understanding is that Wikipedia is not a place that panders to sensitivities. Take the instance of Zola Tongo's family or Xolile Mgneni's family. Neither family is likely be particularly happy that their family members are convicted murderers. Be that as it may, the facts are the facts and those innocent families need to live with said facts, whether or not they strike a sensitive chord. The Dewani and Hindocha families are no different. In an article that discusses the tragic murder of Anni Dewani (Hindocha), the facts pertaining to that murder are reasonable inclusions in the article. Conversely, speculation, unproven allegations and libellous insinuations that cast unfounded aspersions over either the living or dead members of those families, are not reasonable inclusions. If I may be so bold as to stop beating around the bush, the Hindocha family justifiably harbour a huge degree of resentment towards their son-in-law, whom it transpires led a clandestine bisexual lifestyle. It is undeniable that were it not for that son-in-law's existence, their daughter would likely still be alive today since the wedding and the honeymoon in South Africa would never have occurred. If by "respecting sensitivities", you contend that the Hindocha family's personal grievances toward their son-in-law warrant inclusion in the article, then I do not think you will find much support or consensus for that stance. Nor, I suspect, will you find consensus for amendments to the content that serve to create doubt as to the innocence of the son-in-law. This article was shortened and copy edited within the last couple of months and that process relied upon consensus every step of the way. Many editors have contributed. You were and are welcome to suggest amendments. Perhaps instead of speaking in general terms, you might want to suggest specific instances where you feel the article is not respectful and can be improved. Suggest amended wording. If consensus exists for your suggestions, then changes will inevitably follow. Forgive me for being sceptical. This "bias" claim has a very familiar ring to it. A few months ago, a great deal of fuss was being made about the inclusion of the Panorama section. One or two editors made a lot of noise about how ready they were to make arguments to show how unfair and biased it was. When push came to shove, no editor came forward with an argument and the disagreement eventually fizzled out.Dewanifacts (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) >>The answer to both questions is "Yes". The article is absurdly biased. Anyone familiar with the murder of Anni Dewani will recognize the opening paragraphs of this article as a whitewash. It is a matter of record that Anni Hindocha was murdered by a hired hit man, and that there were multiple people involved in planning the killing. Wikipedia should stop covering this up and tell the truth about what happened to her.207.34.76.164 (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Um -- another "one edit" IP heard from. Clue: editors who have edited on a substantial number of articles often are regarded as being more authoritative in their opinions than editors who have few actual article edits at all. I think you would benefit from editing a substantial number of unrelated articles at this point, frankly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC) I think that we need to request an editor who is a lawyer in a common-law country (and most Anglophone countries are common-law) to comment on the statement: "It is a matter of record that Anni Hindocha was murdered by a hired hit man." I am not a lawyer, but that statement seems to me to show an ignorance of how common law works. Common law is adversarial. Any real judicial findings of fact occur only in an adversarial proceeding. The confessions by the murderers that stated that it was a contract murder were not adversarial and so have no validity. The trial of Shrien Dewani was an adversarial proceeding, and resulted in valid judicial findings of fact, such as that the confessions included lies, and such as that there was no material case against Dewani. (In civil law, the court may conduct its own investigation. In common law, the court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defendant, so that there is no real court proceeding if the defendant confesses.) I think that we need to request a common-law lawyer to comment on the persistent statement that there was a judicial finding of fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) To address the substance of the comment being made by the one-edit-IP. Can this person substantiate their claim of "bias"? To whom or what is the article "biased" toward? Can this person provide a citation and sources to back the claim that "it is a matter of record that Anni Hindocha was murdered by a hired hitman"? Even if another few meat puppets come along and echo the allegations of "bias", such claims are meaningless without substantiation. The claims of "bias" are an excursion down a proverbial rabbit hole, unless substantive detail is provided. From the viewpoint of the many editors who have contributed toward the established consensus, the only conceivable "bias" on display in this article is a bias in favour of fact as opposed to fiction. Merry Christmas to all. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Going back to the top of this section, the answer to both questions is yes. Everyone who knows about the murder conspiracy can see that, and increasingly have voiced their opinion in this section. Wikipedia should be ashamed of using their trusted platform as a Trojan Horse for a insidious PR campaign for the man who was charged with being the brains behind the murder conspiracy.ForbesHighland (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC) ForbesHighland is clearly yet another sock puppet of banned editor, Lane99. Only three edits - all today - each on pet murder trial obsessions of Lane99. Bishonen may want to investigate and sort. Happy New Year. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't say the account is necessarily a sock. (I have asked a checkuser, though, and may have more info later.) But having been canvassed from an outside site to come here really comes to the same thing, see WP:MEAT. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC). Yes/Yes. Anni Hindocha's murder was conclusively proven to be a planned contract killing. With a robbery staged to obscure that the actual motive of the conspiracy was actually to murder the woman in the taxicab with Shrien Dewani. The court rulings which confirm this have been provided to Wikipedia, and they are deliberately covering them up in favor of encouraging a press agent for Shrien Dewani to fill the article with self-serving lies. The press agent's enabler, Bishonen(who has admitted he doesn't care if the Wikipedia article is biased), is currently in the process of banning people from all corners of the world who have dared to insist the article adhere to Wikipedia standards for neutrality and accuracy.AHindocha (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC) It's funny how those people from all corners of the world all turn out to edit from the same geographic location when I inquire of a CheckUser. Excuse me while I just see what they have to say about this latest account. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC). Who is this "press agent" to whom the sock puppeteer refers? Is there any evidence to support a claim that such an agent even exists? This unsupported claim comes across as more sour grapes from the pro guilt lobby whose modus operandi regularly includes labeling those who don't share their extreme views as either Dewani family members or agents acting on behalf of the Dewani family. Editors should either provide sources to back their claims or desist from stating them as fact. Dewanifacts (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Yes I fully agree with both questions. 86.185.240.77 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I agree that the answer to both questions is yes; this article is biased. Oh what a surprise. More anonymous IP addresses crying "bias" without elaborating or substantiating. Is Lane99 really going to be permitted to continue this charade conversation between himself and his own string of sock puppet identities? It is clear that this editor is now using an IP anonymiser to make it appear as though these views are being presented by different people in different geographic locations. Is anybody fooled by this ploy? At the very least it is blatant meat puppetry. All of this is inconsequential on the Talk page, however the article's semi protection is due to expire in five weeks. It seems clear that the disruptive editor(s) have no intention of modifying or curbing their disruptive behaviour. I would suggest extending the temporary protection indefinitely. It seems to be working well and is not retarding the article's progress in any way. It is a mature article and any amendments can and should be discussed on the talk page before being enacted. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I haven't counted exact numbers, but it appears virtually everyone (save for an apparent publicist not interested in printed the facts as much as he/she is interested in deleting the facts) agrees that AdvocateBG's edit should be restored. Not surprising, really, as ABG's edit simply lays out the documented record.AHindocha (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Bishonen Samsara Robert McClenon Lane99 has now defied his topic ban yet again and edited the Article to reinstate the false information that is totally against consensus and constitutes a flagrant BLP violation. There is no doubt whatsoever that "AHindocha" is actually a sock of Lane99's. AHindocha has made a flurry of edits to get past the 10-edit semi protection filter, and surprise surprise - those edits just so happen to have been made to articles that relate to pet murder obsessions of Lane99's - Darlie Routier, Ryan Fergusen and the Dewani matter. This can be verified by taking a look at Lane99's twitter account - @perugiamurderfi. Amazingly - these are also the exact same articles edited by "Forbeshighland" - yet another of Lane99's socks who was born a few week ago and swiftly banned. This article needs to be protected and Lane99 and his socks need to be blocked from editing indefinitely. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Someone may also want to take some type of action due to the sockpuppet's username "AHindocha". Clearly this is a distasteful attempt to impersonate or pretend to be a family member of the deceased person Anni Dewani (nee Hindocha), whose brother's name happens to be Anish. It would seem that it violates Wiki username policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy Dewanifacts (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)I have inquired of a checkuser, who tells me AHindocha is "possible bordering likely" to be Lane99. That's not quite enough for me to indef the Lane99 account; probably wouldn't make much difference anyway. But together with behavioral evidence, it's ample to block AHindocha per WP:DUCK, as either a sock- or meatpuppet. Done. There's not enough disruptive activity on the article itself to justify protection — not by a long shot, actually. Also, semiprotection| would only keep out very young socks (less than four days old), while full protection would stop everybody from editing the article. Feel free to post on my page if the situation should change. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC). I agree this Wiki article is extremely biased and non-neutral. And the edit written by Advocate BG should be restored. I am surprised Wikipedia is permitting it's pages to be used by a PR agent with an agenda."tildes" "tildes" "tildes"Qween1991 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Lo and behold. Another brand new meat-puppet/user (see WP:MEAT) who has just joined Wikipedia and taken an interest in this article. I wonder if it might be the same @queen1991 who tweeted less than 24 hours ago "Anyways shriens grey hair is enough proof to me he did it"? Do you have any evidence to support the allegation that a PR agent is operating? If so, please present it. If not, please desist from making such baseless allegations. Are you going to explain what, in your view, is biased about the article? Are you going to suggest any amendments? You do realise, I assume, that the current article is the result of a collaborative editing process involving many editors who disected each and every contentious point to arrive at a consensus. If you wish to contribute you are more than welcome to do so. You would be well advised to put forward suggestions that are backed by reputable sources and are not simply parroting unsubstantiated claims made by another editor - particularly when that editor has been banned due to disruptive behaviour. Dewanifacts (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Lo and Behold. Shrien Dewani's sock puppet makes another misogynistic attack on a female named editor. Would you be the same Dewanifacts who tweeted that Shrien Dewani's limpid eyes could never hide a soul so dark as to have murdered Anni Dewani? Be that as it may, back to the point: the landslide continues. By a ratio of perhaps 5 or 10 to 1, everyone who has contributed to the call for consensus has confirmed what is obvious: that the article is dishonest advocacy. And should be corrected according to Advocate's suggested revision.207.34.76.164 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lane99 - the landslide of your sock/meat puppet votes is meaningless. Your strategy of canvassing meat puppets on social media has been a dismal failure anyway. You are wasting your time. AdvocateBG's version of the lede paragraph will not be reinstated as it constitutes a flagrant violation of BLP protocol. It erroneously stated that this crime was a murder for hire, when in fact it wasn't. Taxi driver Zola Tongo gained the trust of the Dewani couple and set then up to be robbed, kidnapped and possibly more. The kidnapping turned bad when Qwabe accidentally shot Anni during a struggle. In the aftermath, faced with life imprisonment, 3 of the 4 known perpetrators concocted a fanciful story implicating the husband, in exchange for lenient sentences. Caught in a web of their own lies, the "murder for hire" story was proven beyond any doubt to be fabricated, which is why the judge halted Shrien Dewani's trial and dismissed the charges, exonerating him. Those are the facts, whether you choose to accept them or not. Best. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Some statistics: I have to go back to 19 October 2015 to see an IP editing this talkpage without being an obvious sock. Ever since Lane99 was topic banned on 11 November, there has been an influx of disruptive IPs and brand new SPAs; there were none before that point in time. Conclusion: I'm going to semiprotect this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Editing intentions

I suppose I am considered somewhat of a seasoned editor and ran across this article by chance. I aware of BLP discretionary sanctions, and I am fully aware of BLP "rules", as evidenced by previous comments here. I have no motive other than article improvements and generally do not delve into contentious articles involving possible sanctions. With that stated: I intend to address the maintenance tags and add a paragraph to the lead (mentioned above) because content on the subjects in the current last paragraph, not being previously introduced, can be improved, as well as organizing the lead according to prominence and sequence of events. Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Otr500Considering this article (and its lede in particular) has proved contentious, it would be best if you do what all other editors have been asked to do; propose and discuss changes on the talk page and add them to the article only once consensus has been gained. Your comments regarding sequence of events and prominence are quite difficult to follow. Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean so others can understand what you mean? Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance tags and issues

I would like to address the issues of the combined multiple tags on the article so they may be dealt with or dismissed.

• 1)- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: This tag presumably was the result of conflicts surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of the "murder-for-hire" scenario. As far as my understanding this was resolved. Trying to explain such a scenario would be almost impossible as the initial arrests were not made on those grounds, were brought up in what could be seen as a ploy for leniency by the conspirators, and was dismissed. It is not biased to leave out trying to cover something that would violate WP:BLP, was not substantiated, and would not help the article anyway. It would be biased to try to include such content from a single point of view. If the above issue is the reason for the tag it should be removed. If there is another reason it should be address.

• 2)- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: Will this be a career tag or is there some resolution? I have read the article and looked at references (see below) and if an involved editors contributions are a concern this should be addressed. After reading the article the first time I read it a second time specifically looking for biased content that might be attributed to COI. Someone needs to point out any concerns because I must have overlooked it (or them) twice.

• 3)- Wikipedia:Citing sources for verification: There is a tag on an article that is not very long with many sentences referenced (some multiple times), all paragraphs (unless I missed one) referenced for a total of 62 references, and I think issues should be discussed towards resolution.

Sometimes an article receives tags because of editors conflicts or other issue and the tags seem to find a home at the top. As an editor I can not address blanket tags that are not clear as to what the problem concerns. I would state that referenced content regarding what led to the arrest of the initial suspects would be warranted. I also think Gugulethu and Strand should be linked. Otr500 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Otr500 I have abstained from commenting until prompted by you in the other section, because I have been embroiled in the controversy surrounding those tags and it would not be proper for me to be the one to suggest or second their removal. For the record, I completely concur with your view that the disputed neutrality and COI tags have been rendered obsolete. I do not understand what your third issue means. Perhaps a clarification would be helpful. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll remove the tags; IIRC they're remnants of the bitter content dispute from last year. Some of the references need pointing and there's a less-than-ideal level of use of court docs, but it's a complex subject that the papers often don't go into to the level of detail required. If someone wants to add them back, fair enough and then we can discuss/address their concerns. Bromley86 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bromley86. @ Dewanifacts 1)- You are still an editor on Wikipedia and I did not find you part of the sanctions. You can point this out to me if I am mistaken. If I am not then solving problems with the help of other unbiased editors is not improper, especially just adding your opinion. The clarification on Number 3 is not important now unless someone reinserts any tags removed, which should be accompanied by reasoning in the edit summary and possibly on the talk page. The point was that they were "pointless" and unnecessary, from my point of view, so I was seeking comments. I thought they should be removed or reasoning for retention supplied for discussion. Otr500 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

What led to the arrests?

The article does not seem to say what led the police to arrest the suspects – i.e., what led them to arrest and interrogate Mngeni, Qwabe, and Mbolombo. Is that known? That seems like a pretty significant gap in the content of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, it was Mngeni's fingerprint or handprint left on the vehicle that led police to the gang. Mngeni's prints were on file from previous offences. From there I think it was phone records that showed communication between Mngeni and Mbolombo, and then the phone calls between Mbolombo and Tongo which made it clear that Tongo was not an innocent victim as he had been claiming. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If we can find reliable sources of information about that, it would be highly desirable to add it into the article. At the moment, this seems like a pretty significant gap in the content of the article. Readers would want to know about this. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources, one of which is the judgement in the matter of S v Mngeni. Both sources refer to the fingerprints of Mngeni being found on the vehicle. After a quick search I cannot find a source that describes how Mngeni's arrest led to the other arrests. Memory fails me now. I recall reading somewhere that it was the cellphone calls between the men that led police from Mngeni to the others. It is a fairly obvious conclusion to draw even if a source cannot be found but it probably cannot be included here on Wikipedia without a reliable source to confirm.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 March 2016‎ (UTC)

References

Bromley86 You have added a number of "where" tags to the Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#Investigation:_sequence_of_arrests_and_confessions section. What information are you looking for? If you provide some specifics I would be happy to try to help. At this stage I'm not sure what the "where" tags mean. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DF. I'm referring to page/section references, so those wishing to confirm don't have to read the entire document/book (e.g. Bitter Dawn) or watch the entire video (e.g. Panorama). Useful fields are page for books, and at for things like legals docs with section/para numbers, and time or minutes for cite av media. There are a couple of ways of handling multiple page cites from the same source, but the neatest is usually just to create a new ref for each different page referred to (so refnames bit137 for references to page 137, bit145 for references to pages 145-6, etc). I try to specifically target the references, rather than referring to pages 137-150. All made-up examples, of course. Bromley86 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just found a different way of doing it, like here. Not saying it's better than proper inline (|at= etc.), but (a) I didn't know it could be done that way and (b) it's better than adding page templates to all the references. Bromley86 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bromley86, I am not having much luck in trying to follow your instructions for adding the page citations. I am a little pressed for time at the present so I have pasted the whole section below and have added the required citation details in CAPITALS. I have also added the explanations for what led to the arrests in bolded text. Perhaps you or someone else can make the changes to the article with the citations properly marked in the fashion you suggested.

Collapsed WORKING DRAFT TO IMPROVE CITATIONS IN SECTION: Investigation: sequence of arrests and confessions

As a result of a palm print found on the abandoned taxi, Xolile Mngeni was arrested on Tuesday 16 November 2010, and made a videotaped confession in the presence of Captain Jonker of the South African Police Service. In his confession, Mngeni admitted involvement in a hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation . He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims and said Qwabe shot Anni Dewani during a struggle for her handbag. Mziwamadoda Qwabe was arrested at around 01:00 on Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of a tip-off from a trusted township informant in his local area. After initial denials, Qwabe was allowed to consult with arrested co-conspirators Mbolombo and Mngeni, and subsequently admitted involvement in the hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims . He changed his story during an interview recorded at 17:21 that day, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Monde Mbolombo was arrested in the early hours of Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of Qwabe providing his name to the police. After initially denying involvement, Mbolombo made a recorded confession at 16:30, admitting arranging a hijacking and armed robbery operation. The confession did not mention a planned murder or Shrien Dewani's involvement.. The following day, Mbolombo changed his story, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Zola Tongo reported the hijacking to a police station in Gugulethu after he was ejected from the vehicle, and made a statement saying he was an unknowing victim. On 17 November, Tongo gave a statement to Officer Hendrikse of the SAPS again saying he was an innocent victim. The following day, Tongo appointed attorney William De Grass. On Saturday 20 November, Tongo surrendered to police and said the operation was a planned murder staged to look like a random hijack, at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC) References

Added citation to above working refinement of section Dewanifacts (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed working refinement of section, in interest of tidyness. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DF, I'll work it. I can't put through any of the Bitter Dawn refs, as I don't have access to it myself to confirm. Also, does the eBook not have page numbers? Finally, I'm having trouble sourcing the handprint, am I right in thinking that is in Bitter Dawn, as it doesn't appear to be reported elsewhere? Bromley86 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see all the refs after that first one are to do with Bitter Dawn :) . Bromley86 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a cheeky request over on Resource Exchange for the entire book. They can work wonders there, but an entire book might be a bit much!

I had a quick look at the preview of the eBook,[http://www.amazon.com/Bitter-Dawn-Truth-murder-Dewani-ebook/dp/B00OYTE3NS#reader_B00OYTE3NS] so I see that there aren't page numbers. In this case, I'd use chapter and section numbers (you'll have to manually count the sections (***), as they're not numbered). In this case, you'd use "|at=", perhaps like this:

They saw the Lion King in London. Bromley86 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86 Mngeni handprint citation - this article

I have done the legwork and counted the section numbers and inserted that information after each of the citations above. I am hoping that someone else can format it properly as I am a little bit technically challenged when it comes to this wikipedia markup. Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again DF. I'm of the opinion, and I'm not certain that this is WP's policy, but I assume it is, that editors should only add references or material that thye have had sight of themselves. So, IMO, it would be wrong for anyone who did not have access to the book to add the refs. I'm getting around that by using primary sources that I can access.

If you are interested in doing it yourself, I included an example of how to format an "|at" element above. I'll reproduce it below in full form, using nowikis, so you can see. Just replace A Romance with the chapter name, and the ch. and sec. with the relevant chapter and sections:

<ref>{{cite book |last1=Newling |first1=Dan |title=Bitter Dawn |date=2014 |publisher=[[Oneworld Publications|Jonathan Ball Publishers]] |isbn=978-1-86842-624-9 |at=A Romance (ch.2, sec.3)}}</ref>

Bromley86 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Bromley86. Understood. Thanks for that nowiki version of the code. Made it relatively easy for me. Appreciated. I have added the citations to the collapsed working draft above. Ideally we would get a little bit of further input from other editors so that this is a genuinely collaborative effort. Once other editors are happy with the changes then we can replace the current section with the refined version. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I added the new version with improved citations to the article. If anyone has any issue they can revert my edit and/or discuss here on the talk page Dewanifacts (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)