Wikipedia

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 32

< Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher
Latest comment: 13 years ago by CodyJoeBibby in topic Body moved after death
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35

Contamination of bra clasp refound near Knox desk lamp

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For article text about possible contamination, I have been re-reading the Micheli Judgment (filed 26 January 2009), where he states that on 18 December 2007, the bra clasp was re-found (originally under the bed pillow on floor) "46 days" later, under Kercher's desk but very near the electric cord of Knox's desklamp (black lamp, Italian: "lampada nera"), where the desklamp had been moved from the entry of Kercher's room and placed on the desk. Judge Paolo Micheli's concern of the 2 items together, is regarding the likely contamination, of the bra clasp, with Sollecito's DNA from Knox's desklamp being handled in the same room, re-found a few centimeters from the hook (Italian: "pochi centimetri dal gancetto"). Since Knox and Sollecito spent time in Knox's room, it would make sense his DNA would be in there, such as on Knox's desklamp. Do any of the other sources mention this issue, or state that Knox's room was not searched for Sollecito's DNA because he was a likely occupant of her bedroom? Also, with the lamp cord extending out under Kercher's locked door, it is likely that Sollecito would have touched the cord, or pulled it, due to the bizarre event of seeing an electric cord leading out under a locked door, to a hall electric outlet, when a window was broken in a room 2 doors down the hall. This is an issue of crime-scene contamination: an electric cord (plug) is in a common area (visited by 8 people), as a temptation to be touched/pulled, but the desklamp itself is behind the door, so should a CSI investigator cut the cord and bag the desklamp as 2 separate items? Do we have any sources about this aspect? Search for Italian sources with: Perugia "lampada nera" (or similar). It matched the Italian book Meredith: luci e ombre a Perugia ("Light and Shadow at Perugia"), page 81 (web: BG81). -Wikid77 10:06, 6 May 2011, revised 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Searches after arrest of Knox/Sollecito

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the Micheli Judgment (filed 26 January 2009), there is a reference to re-searching the cottage on 6 November 2007 at "09:40" and Sollecito's residence (Corso Garibaldi 110) at "10:00" which is when, I presume, they confiscated his computer and collected other evidence, following his arrest with Knox. Do we have any other sources about that? -Wikid77 10:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting because Sollecito's lawyer implies it was already seized by 5 Nov. From The Telegraph:

"He also told the court that on the night of 5 and 6 November someone had been trawling the internet on Mr Sollecito's computer reading news websites detailing the murder.

Luca Maori, Mr Sollecito's lawyer, who did not say who he thought was on the computer, said: "Whoever it was cancelled valuable data that showed Raffaele was on the computer the night of the murder."
I believe Sollecito had two computers seized, right?.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. The local police made their investigations of Sollecito's house and car, and the forensic police (from Rome) also made investigations. I read the kitchen knives were collected on 6 November 2007. -Wikid77 16:12, 8 May 2011, revised 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent, Front Page CNN Article

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

To cut to the chase, I don't have a suggestions for a specific edit. If you want a specific suggestion, read another post.

Today on CNN, they are running this on the front page.[1] It is obviously meant to advertise the new documentary airing on Sunday, but it can be useful. The story veers from being a generally fair summary of the major case points to being a puff-piece on Knox, portraying her in a generally positive light.

I am placing this article here for two main reasons.

1. It has the most non-case related biographical info I've seen on Knox in a RS (I've not read any of the books...they probably have much more). There have been suggestions that we increase the intro sections to Knox and Sollecito as it's undue weight on Guede that his intro is bigger (though I still can't decide if that is good or bad). This article could beef up Knox's section. (or, better yet, help in making the sorely needed Knox article-discussion for another time).

2. It could be used as a source for many of the past statements which people have said weren't sourced enough (low DNA, DNA testing standards, forensic evidence as "controversial", media portrayal of Knox). Most of these things are currently in the article and sourced, but because there was incredible resistance to putting in that sourced info, perhaps people would want to double source those statements with this article (I may start that today).

Anyway, nothing either in my post or in the article should be controversial: this is more of a heads-up to all.LedRush (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking the time to note that report. As I see it, that webpage supports Knox's individual notability, with yet another WP:RS source, in 2011, reporting the 2009 testimony of Andrew S. (Knox's friend, a University of Washington psychology major) as to Knox's non-violent, honors-student character. As for Knox's bio, I had suggested getting 2 sources for each event to be included, as having significance to the article. What the sources are reporting, as continually notable, is that Amanda Knox was a friendly, peace-loving, conscientious student with good grades (what I call "POV-boring" details), as supported by sworn testimonies during her trial, under penalty of years of imprisonment in hot Italian prisons if lying under oath. I suppose it could be said that many reports about Mother Teresa were also "puff-pieces" because there was not much negative reported about her, either. ;) -Wikid77 16:12, 8 May 2011, revised 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I recently noticed a list which has several WP:Reliable sources linked in the right margin at SeattlePI.com, here:

  • "Rudy Guede: Amanda Knox was not there", SeattlePI.com, April 28, 2011, web: SPI-28.

That webpage, describing the many times that Guede reportedly changed his version of events, has links to numerous news reports and other sources which report Guede's version of events, from the Internet Skype calls in November 2007, his interrogation by the German police, and his changing statements regarding his trials, such as the first appeal trial when he claimed he heard Amanda Knox's voice in arguments, while he was listening to hip-hop songs in his iPod earphones with the volume turned up, but only moved when he later claimed to hear cries (Italian: grida). His admission of giving the false information to the police in Stuttgart (Germany) is also noted in the Micheli Judgment 28.10.2008 (filed 26 January 2009):

"tanto da aver reso false generalità (su consiglio di altre persone di colore, non meglio indicate, che gli avevano anche suggerito di presentare domanda di asilo) in occasione di un controllo da parte della Polizia di Stoccarda;"
English: "that he had given false information (on the advice of other people of color, not further indicated, that they had also suggested he apply for asylum) during questioning by the Police in Stuttgart". –Micheli Judgment

Hence, by reading other webpages, some difficult-to-search reliable sources can be found, to provide footnotes for the text. -Wikid77 16:06, 1 May 2011, revised 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Haven't you misread him? He isn't saying that the blog is a reliable source, but rather that the blog links to reliable sources which would otherwise be hard to find.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right and I was to quick with my posting. There are RS's linked from this blog.TMCk (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that you trust the blogger not to have made any mistakes in quoting from the sources, and will believe him when he says a quote is in source without checking the sources yourself? Judging by the number of source errors generally found this is not safe. Kwenchin (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be rash. The blog does provide a link to sources, so it would be best to read those sources and quote them directly if needed rather than filter it through the blog. pablo 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
To be a bit stronger, DON'T use the blog as a source. Period. Use it as a means to find sources, with the realization that the blog has a strong POV. Use the good secondary sources that the blog links to for the information and for the reference. For this article, it really doesn't matter what the blog says. But if it helps point to good sources, excellent. Same with anything else (see the various advocacy sites on both sides). Ravensfire (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The point is to look past the wording of the blog, and independently verify that the linked sources are about the issues, by reading inside the source webpages. -Wikid77 21:23, 11 May 2011, revised 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

shoe prints

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

In this edit [2] the language is changed to say that the shoe print is unidentified. Do we not know who belonged to the shoe print (was it Guede's or someone else's) or do we not know what type of shoe Guede was wearing?LedRush (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

According to what's already in the article, the prosecution contended that it was Knox's. A witness for the defence stated that it was a partial print that matched the pattern of Guede's shoe. So nothing conclusive there. pablo 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
What? Page 335 of the Massei report positively identifies them as size 11, Nike Outbreak 2 shoe prints probably identical to Guede's shoes. This wasn't "internet conjecture".
It may be worth mentioning here that the same editor who made that edit has initiated deletion process for all the images (4) related to Guede and evidence
I'd throw it back in, say the print probably matched Guede's shoes and add the source. With the report being a primary source, is this covered in any of the secondary sources? EDIT: I would suggest waiting for a day to give the editor who removed the information a chance to comment on this. Take a bit of time to discuss it here and avoid an(other) edit war. Ravensfire (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I just made an edit that removed mention of the shoe prints in the photo caption. The important evidence found on the pillow case was the palm print matched to Guede. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
For clarity, on p 335 of the translated Massei report, referred to by Berean Hunter, it is suggested that exhibit 5A is "probably identical" to Guede's shoe. But 5A isn't the pillowcase, it is a photograph of a footprint found on the floor in Kercher's room. The pillowcase is exhibits 104 and 105.
Both prints were examined in two expert reports. The first concluded that 5A belonged to Sollecito and that 104/5 belonged to Guede (see p 336 of Massei translation). The second concluded that 5A belonged to Guede and 104/5 to Knox (pp 335,342).
Regarding the difference of opinion about 104/5 (the pillowcase), Massei says "The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion" (p344).--FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing that as you are. You seem to be co-mingling the shoe prints in 104 (made by a right shoe) with that of 105 (made by a left shoe). The shoe print in Photo 104 is not in dispute and the report states that on p. 336. The different shoe print in 105 is the one that is indeterminate.
"photo 104 from the Latent Prints Evidence Section (Meredith's pillow): conclusion of probable identity with the bottom of the right size 11 Nike "OUTBREAK 2" shoe (there is full compatibility of the heels' [tacchetti] traces left behind with those of the new shoe bought from the official Nike retailer, cf. Rinaldi testimony)"
From the conclusion on p. 344, "It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor, to the exclusion of Knox..."
The shoe print in 105 ("was made by the heel and the middle part of the sole of a left shoe" p. 342) leaves some doubt that Guede alone left a print....but it definitely identified Guede's shoe print on that pillowcase. None of this has anything to do with Exhibit 5A.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
BH, in the extract you quote from p 336, note that Massei is summarising a technical report, not stating the court's conclusions. Note also the end of what you quote: "cf. Rinaldi testimony" - i.e. "this is disputed". --FormerIP (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

[exdent] Micheli's report on penale.it (at http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750) says that Guede 'had not explained how one of his (sic) [shoe?]prints was on the pillow'. That's why I've put a cn on the image that says 'one of Guede's palm prints' – I can't find anything in Micheli's report that mentions his palm. This, like the five(!) shoeprints [the report says one, uno] looks 'poetic license'.--Red King (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Micheli Report (filed 26 January 2009), regarding the "palm print" (Italian: "impronta palmare"), gives the whole description: comparazione in Banca Dati di un'impronta palmare impressa nel sangue e rinvenuta sulla federa del cuscino che si trovava sotto il corpo della vittima (English: the "comparison in the database [data-bank] of a palm-print imprinted in the blood and found on the pillow which was found under the victim's body." Before this is over, I am hoping everyone will learn how to read Italian. -Wikid77 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"The handprint found on a pillow in the room, on which the lifeless corpse of Meredith was found placed, turned out to have been made by Rudy Guede...." (Massei Report, p. 43.)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Also from Nadeau's Angel Face, p. 109..."...traces on her body and his bloody handprint on the pillow underneath it, belonged to Rudy."
I totally agree, there is not any dispute about the palm print. --FormerIP (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Guede stated that he thought the bedspread quilt (he claimed was still on the bed) was most likely "red", but it was beige (as shown in the article photo), and instead, the white bedsheet was stained with pools of red blood and blood-soaked towels, looking like Guede's idea of a red bed quilt, when Kercher's door was forced open. -Wikid77 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The shoe-prints on that single bed pillow, under the body in the murder room, were a major part of Rudy Guede's first trial, as being Nike Outbreak 2 size 11 (Italian: misura 11), which he explained to the court, matching the empty shoe-box found by police in Guede's apartment, and there was no mention of anyone else's shoes or hands on that pillow, in October 2008. The Massei document, published in 2010, does not apply to that section of the article, about Guede's 2008 trial. It is important to remember which, of the 5 trials (the 2 initial trials & 3 appeals), are being described in each section of the article. Only Guede was on trial in October 2008, and any evidence fabricated or constructed to incriminate Knox/Sollecito was apparently developed after that date. -Wikid77 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
First, the reference I gave earlier to Micheli's judgement says 'print'. Not foot-print, palm-print, finger-print, just print. So where is the evidence of shoe-print[s] on the pillow? Micheli certainly doesn't mention it. He only mentions a shoe-print near the body. [btw, I've found the text about the palm print: Soltanto in seguito, attraverso la comparazione in Banca Dati di un’impronta palmare impressa nel sangue e rinvenuta sulla federa del cuscino che si trovava sotto il corpo della vittima, si accertava invece la presenza sul luogo del delitto del 21enne G. R. H., nativo della Costa d’Avorio ma cresciuto di fatto a Perugia, città dove aveva convissuto per un certo periodo con il proprio padre, venendo in seguito affidato a famiglie umbre: ... = "Only later, through the comparison in the database of a palm-print imprinted in the blood of the victim and found on the pillowcase of the pillow where the body of the victim was found, it confirmed instead the presence at the scene of the crime of the 21st G.R.H., native of the Ivory Coast but actually brought up in Perugia, a city where he had lived for a certain period with his own father, subsequently coming in trust [fostered?] with an Umbrian family: ..."] But regarding the shoe-print, there is a reference to a [one] footprint near the body, but not on the pillow: La circostanza assumeva un particolare rilievo, dal momento che alcune impronte di scarpe sportive repertate nella casa di Via della Pergola, e soprattutto una in prossimità del cadavere, erano state inizialmente ricondotte a un diverso modello di “Nike” (Air Force) ... = "The circumstances assumed a particular relevance, from the moment that some prints of sports shoes found in the house on Via della Pergola, and especially one near the body, were traced initially to a different model of "Nike" (Air Force) ...". So, one foot-print near the body. No foot-prints on the pillow. So it is interesting if they turn up at the other trial? --Red King (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The bed pillow has the only shoe-prints found near the body; the other shoe-prints (also matching Nike Outbreak 2, size 11 basketball shoes), in the room, are inside the doorway at the corner of the bed. -Wikid77 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


  • This wording needs better clarification: "A further shoe print, believed by prosecutors to be a woman's, was found on the bed pillow, under the body on the floor. It was the right size to be Knox's, although it did not match her footwear.[57]" This should not state "It was the right size to be Knox's" as if that is a fact. This is not the wording in the source either. The way it is currently worded is misleading. It should be very clear that this was believed by the prosecution but heavily disputed by the defense [3]. If the source is used correctly the sentence should read something like "the prosecution argued that it was the right size to be Knox's" BruceFisher (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
We need to return to using small, dedicated sections to more fully explain controversial issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrial gets 40-day delay for DNA

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

08-May-2011: Numerous reliable sources (CNN, Telegraph, CBS News) are reporting how the Knox/Sollecito re-trial has been delayed 40 days, when the judge consented to an extension for re-examining DNA evidence, pending the release of more police evidence to be examined by the forensic experts at Sapienza University in Rome. One of Knox's attorneys was quoted as saying the extension was expected, as typical when re-testing evidence. That extension gives editors on the article another 40-day period to expand the text and images, to give readers a better understanding of the case, once the results of the DNA re-testing are discussed in court (re-scheduled from 21 May to late June 2011). However, note that any image-for-deletion discussions are typically decided within a 7-day period, not benefitting from the 40-day extension. -Wikid77 16:12, 8 May 2011, revised 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech Regarding this case in Perugia

Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments7 people in discussion

Mignini has just shut down the Italian blog 'Perugia Shock', one of the main blogs on this case, for allegedly defaming him, by applying to a court in Florence for a court order. The CPJ have now sent a second letter to the Italian authorities protesting the abuse of state power to restrict freedom of speech in discussing the Knox case. I think it's time some reference to these egregious and undemocratic actions goes into this article. Thoughts? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As that has nothing to do with the topic of this article, no, it really has no place here. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's about as relevant as the defamation case against Knox. Really, the content regarding Mignini should be dramatically expanded, but I am not sure the best way to incorporate this information.LedRush (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that if free discussion of the murder of Meredith Kercher is prohibited in Perugia, that that situation is of relevance here. It's undoubtedly of relevance to the larger issue of freedom of speech in Italy. Hopefully we'll get some opinions from people other than Tarc and the usual suspects on this. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This has no connection to the case. Perhaps you can try your hand at Press freedom in Italy, though whether either of you could pen an objective article on the subject matter is debatable. And no, there's connection to the city's Perugia article either, so I would advise you not to try to edit war over there. Again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 10:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. Tarc graces us with ad hominem personal attacks and conclusory statements which contradict common sense. Do you have anything constructive to add?LedRush (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Stating that this situation 'has no connection to the case' is self-evidently wrong and irrational. Could we have a clear definition of exactly what does and does not 'have a connection to the case' please, thanks. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of sources. Funny how you just turned up, TMCk. Nice to see you again. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Not really funny. Would you like to suggest a specific edit, and sources? pablo 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not necessary to provide a specific edit idea each time the article is discussed, though it can be helpful when ideas are more formed and people have demonstrated a general willingness to participate in the editing process constructively. As such, do you have anything constructive to say?LedRush (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that, given the claims ("egregious and undemocratic", "abuse of state power") this is exactly the type of edit that would benefit discussion before insertion, and as such, my comment above is a constructive one. pablo 16:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
[ec]I assume Tarc, TMCk and SuperMario come here at around the same time for the same reason I usually do...this article is on my watchlist. Regardless, this Seattle news site is reporting it http://seattlest.com/2011/05/12/italians_give_foxy_amanda_knox_blog.php . IF you want some more background, you can check Dempsey's articles at the SeattlePI. I actually think that the steepest hurdle for this info is notability, not relevance. However, this could be a good time to start an article on Mignini, seeing as how he is the subject of so much controversy and he is notable in at least a few respects.LedRush (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
All I wanted to add in the MoMK article was just a brief fully sourced sentence referring to the restrictions on freedom of speech in Italy regarding the case. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it is an overstatement to say that this is a restriction on freedom of speech, a concept which means something different in every country. Regardless of the country, defamation is usually an exception to this concept of free speech. In this case, I would think that the notability is that Mignini has filed a case against Sfarzo in relation to his coverage of this case.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe LedRush has a good point here that an article could be created on Mignini.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning the fact seems relevant & fine if done briefly. Presenting it as restriction on freedom of speech would need strong sourcing though, and relevant counterpoint. --Errant (chat!) 15:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a restriction on freedom of speech as understood in democracies like the United States in that Mignini is using defamation law to silence criticism of his performance as a public official, a situation that would not be countenanced in the US or any other genuinely free nation. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
All very well and good - if you have a decent source then we can consider adding in opinions about it. But there is little point asserting views on the matter which simply will not go into the article w/o sources. --Errant (chat!) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's self evident what he's doing. the CPJ have sent two open letters to the authorities in Italy describing exactly the abuse of power I've just described. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"It's self evident what he's doing"; no, that's exactly not the right way to approach this. If you catch yourself thinking this stop and restart the thought process. Reliable sources are the way forward :) --Errant (chat!) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I tweaked the wording for three reasons (but all the detail is intact). Firstly "news broke" is a bit of a clunky way to word things, better just to describe what happened. Secondly it generally makes best sense to order it in the form of "What is it", "What happened","Who" and "Why". The original way seemed to take a while to get to the bottom of the issue. And thirdly the original sentence parsed like the blog was critical of LE because of their defamation. --Errant (chat!) 19:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you like. The reason i said 'news broke' was specifically for the reason that the defamation action, court order and subsequent removal of the blog did not all happen on the same day. Using the phrase 'news broke' is in fact an accurate description of the facts as we the public got to know them. However I don't object to your rewording of my edit. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's cool - when working with shaky/unknown timescales it is usually best to work back from a date we do know (i.e. the blog being pulled) and just skip over not knowing the dates. More info may emerge in time. But it is usually best not to use a source breaking the story to say the story broke - because technically that is OR :P --Errant (chat!) 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blog Perugia-Shock removed by Google

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If anyone intends to search in Perugia-Shock to find any linked WP:Reliable sources for the article, then remember that blog was removed by Google from Blogspot.com (on 10 May 2011).

"Sorry, the blog at perugia-shock.blogspot.com has been removed".

That blog's 461 webpages, still indexed by Google, are only accessible as search-cache pages, and will likely disappear from the Google Search index, within 2 weeks. An ongoing legal dispute in Italy, involving F. Sforza ("Frank Sfarzo"), has been noted as the reason Google has removed the Perugia-Shock blog, at request of judge(s) in Italy. A list of the 461 pages can be viewed by searching with "site:perugia-shock.blogspot.com". As noted by other editors above, we are NOT reading blogs as reliable content, but merely to find other source webpages linked within them. -Wikid77 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it. Just added a short sentence to the MoMK article detailing the removal of the blog. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
We should hunt for sources which might state Google blocked access to the Perugia-Shock blog to prevent "tampering of evidence" about alleged defamation, written within that blog, and whether such evidence was planted to frame people on accusations of criminal libel. If Google has merely suspended the blog, treated as static evidence in Italian courts, then the blog might be re-instated later, although perhaps several months, or over a year later. -Wikid77 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Google removed the blog in response to a court order from a Florence court, a copy of which can be seen at Candace's blog. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Prosecutor

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

I am extremely concerned by this sentence:

Since the trial, Mignini has been convicted of "abuse of office" in an unrelated case - sentenced to 16 months in prison by a Florence court for tapping the phones of police officers and journalists investigating the still unsolved Monster of Florence case. He has protested his innocence, and remains in office, pending an appeal. source

This seems basically an attempt to undermine him as prosecutor in a fairly crude manner. I don't think that, based on this source at least, the matter is of relevance to this article/subject. The only thing I can see that might make it relevant is, from that source, "Knox’s family are now expected to argue that Mignini’s conviction undermines his credibility." Have they done this? Do we have a reliable source dealing with it in more depth?

Otherwise it looks to me like an unrelated matter that includes Knox details when reported because of his connection. --Errant (chat!) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a detail brought up in all of the documentaries I've seen, and many of the articles. I've just today expressed the opinion that we should be expanding the details of this prosecutor in this article as he remains incredibly controversial.LedRush (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. I've never in my life heard of anyone like Mignini until the Knox case. I probably never will again. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Then it needs to be done with better sources than this. The event is completely irrelevant in the current context. Seriously suggest avoiding dragging in details about the prosecutor in this way - we can probably deal in a reasonable way with the fact he is objected to without turning it into a lynching on the page ("oh look at all the bad stuff he has done, must have been corrupt here too"). --Errant (chat!) 19:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
@Cody; you've obviously never been to Italy then :P very corrupt system from the ground up (ahem, sorry for the off-topic). Mignini doesn't seem all that bad by my experience. --Errant (chat!) 19:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been to Italy 3 times. Thank God nobody was murdered in my vicinity or I probably wouldn't be editing Wikipedia right now. With respect, a conviction (not a charge) for abuse of office, exactly the kind of well-documented behaviour Mignini has repeatedly exhibited and continues to exhibit, does not seem irrelevant. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/Amanda-Knox-prosecutor-convicted-of-abuse-of-894312.php
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/01/25/could-prosecutors-conviction-help-amanda-knox/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/25/amanda-knox-appeal
Seeing as literally every source I've read about concerning this reports it in connection with the "Knox trial", it seems very strange that we would even entertain taking this information out. In fact, as I have suggested above, information on Mignini should be greatly expanded.LedRush (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Please add more about it: "Mignini has been allowed to further prosecute Knox and Sollecito, by seeking life imprisonment, despite being found guilty of judicial misconduct before appealing his case". -Wikid77 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a prosecution relating to a case in 1985! So, no, the relevance is not that he was prosecuted for abuse of process - the relevance is to Knox's trial and how it might affect his participation. Something I note no one has bothered to deal with. Instead we have a BLP hit piece. :) --Errant (chat!) 20:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The prosecution of Mignini was recent and the appeal is ongoing. Where are you getting 1985 from? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The Monster of Florence issue was in 1985, but Mario Spezi's re-investigation was in recent years. -Wikid77 21:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this is a "hit piece". It is a neutral presentation of information that all the sources seem to indicate is relevant to this case. If you would like to connect the dots more, that's fine. But it obviously isn't necessary to do so.LedRush (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
As inserted it had zero relevance. I have tried to clear up that problem by drawing in the relevance (i.e. grounds for appeal) and clarifying the date of the original case. See what you think. @Cody; the events (and the case) were in 1985. It is only recently he was convicted of it. It was probably political posturing TBH, not at all uncommon in Italy. --Errant (chat!) 20:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Errant, you're wrong. Dr Narducci died in 1985. Mignini did not start investigating (more accurately re-investigating) the death until 2001. It's complex, I know, but you need to get a better handle on these events before you start removing stuff from this article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
You're partially right, still digging into the sources. Mignini seems to have been involved in the 1993 arrests. And it looks like the phone tapping stems from sometime around then (at least if my crappy Italian translation is right). We need a better way to present this.. the thing to avoid is the rough suggestion (which the original wording did) is that this is something he did at the same time as the Knox events. I can omly work with the sources I find Cody :) so if you have better ones, provide them for my edification! --Errant (chat!) 20:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, seems he had a bit part in the original arrests and there was some controversy about that brought up at this prosecution. But, yeh, the phone tapping happened in post 2001. I can't tie down a date though. --Errant (chat!) 20:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
All of the relevant charges happened post 2001. If you haven't already read it, The Monster of Florence by Doug Preston is a pretty good source on this incredibly convoluted story. Mignini really is an eight cylinder nutjob. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoiding generalities about Mignini: As long as we just state the objective facts as reported about Mignini, then the text should pass WP:BLP restrictions. For example, if a source states he claimed a Satanic orgy in another case, then note that case, but do not generalize and say, "All Mignini's cases claim the suspects had devil-worship orgies" (not allowed as a generalization). However, it would be an NPOV-vio to omit that Mignini opened the case as a claimed Satanic sex-ritual, a day late for Halloween, claiming to have a blood "Celtic horse" on the wall (which was determined in court to be a smeared hand-print). -Wikid77 21:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Nah, that's pushing the link much too tenuously. Because it is basically the generalisation you claim to be avoiding - implied with a wink. The previous case is utterly irrelevant apart from the possible affect on the appeals (which seems to not really have happened anyway) --Errant (chat!) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, criticisms of him in reliable sources have noted this fact.LedRush (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a notable fact that Mignini was allowed to continue with his job as prosecutor even after his conviction. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Setting notability limits for inclusion in MoMK

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

At this point, it might be good to talk about how many major news articles about an event (survey, book, film) are needed to reach notability within an article (not "individual notability" but inside the same article). Should we consider a film mentioned by 3 reliable sources as notable for inclusion, or just 2 (etc.)? For instance, if only one news report identified a possible "5th suspect" because one of the other 14 fingerprints hit a match to someone finally arrested on a new criminal charge, should that 5th subject be noted in the article. Or, if a news report claimed some witnesses felt compelled to say Kercher's Italian boyfriend was really in town that night early, when he claimed an alibi as being out of town since 29-Oct-2007 (perhaps just to avoid police harrassment), should that go in the article based on 1 news report? There were 13 unmatched fingerprints, so the expectation is that if an "accomplice" had no prior record but continues and gets fingerprinted for a new crime, then that would legitimately be the 5th suspect, and Rudy might be right saying it was some "short Italian guy with no glasses...wearing a white cap with a red stripe, black jacket with logo Napapijri" (needing money from Kercher's room) but Rudy only said "looked like R.S." to get his 30-year term cut to 16 years. Because... you may already know there are single sources out there that discuss a possible 5th suspect observed that night (among 39,000 students), and people wonder why didn't Rudy name him, unless it seemed an easier acquittal to name the current suspects. To me, it seems there is a town of "39,000" suspects, and 13 unmatched fingerprints, etc. So, again: how many news reports are needed to claim an issue is notable enough for the article? Does anyone think we should add a paragraph about a 5th suspect yet? -Wikid77 07:51, 29 April 2011, revised 16:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As this article is about the murder, the investigation, and some of the counterclaims of a frame or setup, no, I don't think we need to delve down into every wild theory that comes down the wire. This is not a venue to try to exonerate a suspect. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I did not use the term "wild theory" to describe a reliable source. This is not a venue to suppress information which might exonerate a suspect. -Wikid77 16:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
When you're talking about a criminal case, someone's really only a suspect when the police say they are a suspect. There's enough media hyperbole and crap in the article already, we should be trying to keep garbage out, not add it in. STRONGLY concur about Tarc's last point. Ravensfire (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There's definitely not enough for a section on a fifth suspect (unless I'm missing a slew of RSs on the issue). However, if there are 14 unmatched fingerprints in the apartment, I don't see why that wouldn't be included. I would imagine such inclusion would be a part of another sentence (i.e., very short), make no claims associated with this fact (e.g., someone else did it), and be substantiated by RSs (I haven't seen any yet).LedRush (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Mentioning the unattributed fingerprints will imply to readers that they are somehow connected to the crime. But we don't have any reliable sources making that connection. It would just be speculation on our part. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Just state it as a statement of fact. There were fingerprints that were not connected to any of the suspects. We don't have to speculate anything. BelloWello (talk) 01
06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The crucial word is "connection". Certainly there is all manner of "facts" that could be added to the article, but without discussion (not simple mentions) in reliable sources, the advantages of adding detail do not compensate for the disadvantages of filling out and bloating the article text. SuperMarioMan 01:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly unidentified fingerprints in the house are more relevant than fruit juice? Regardless, I want to see the RSs and how they use the info. The rest of this conversation is speculative until we see the RSs.LedRush (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't deny that it's a much weightier point than juice. There is probably little about the case that is less worthy of inclusion than juice... SuperMarioMan 02:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikid, please provide links to sources that discuss the fifth person (and that state that they are a 'suspect') and sources that discuss the unidentified fingerprints. pablo 06:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The description comes from the Micheli Judgment 28.10.2008 (filed 26 January 2009), in the Italian (page 17-18):
Descriveva il soggetto in questione come di poco più basso di lui, di corporatura analoga, con jeans chiari, una giacca nera marca “Napapijri” di cui aveva notato il logo, una cuffia bianca recante una striscia rossa nel mezzo e i capelli - che si intravedevano al di sotto - di colore castano: non era in grado di fornirne una descrizione migliore proprio a causa dell’aggressione in atto, che lo aveva indotto a prestare attenzione a non essere ferito, anche se l’uomo lo aveva attinto di striscio alla mano destra. Peraltro, l’illuminazione era piuttosto bassa, perché di acceso vi era soltanto una abat-jour nella camera della vittima. [sic] –Micheli Judgment, p. 17-18
English: "[Guede] described the person in question as a little shorter than him, of similar build, with light jeans, a black jacket marked "Napapijri" which he had noticed the logo, a white cap with a red stripe in the middle, and his hair - which could be seen below - pale brown: he was not able to provide a better description on account of the attack in progress, which prompted him to be careful not to be hurt, even as the man had struck at his right hand. Moreover, the lighting was quite low, because there was only an abat-jour [light] in the bedroom of the victim". –Micheli Judgment, p. 17-18
Other sources are difficult find, all these years later; however, obviously such details were discussed in reliable sources (think: After Guede described the clothes, would reliable sources really fail to mention that?). As for fingerprints, begin with source from ABC News, "Testimony at Amanda Knox Trial Centers on Prints, DNA" (by Ann Wise, Perugia, Italy, 8 May 2009, web: ABC25): stating "A total of 61 prints were taken... at the scene of the crime. ... all but 13 were identified...." continuing "Five prints belonged to Sollecito... two of which were found on the outside of Kercher's bedroom door." (16:25, 30 April 2011) Wikid77 revised 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not really good enough, though, to merely state that "obviously such details were discussed in reliable sources" and "After Guede described the clothes, would reliable sources really fail to mention that?" - it needs to be referenced directly in the article. pablo 18:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
The key point to note is that, logically, reliable sources would have mentioned Guede's detailed description of the man's clothing. Hence, a search for such sources would be expected to be successful. In fact, Italian secondary sources have mentioned Guede's description of the alleged knifer's clothing, so there is the confirmation of this key point. -Wikid77 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
How is that not OR? Ravensfire (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a violation of WP:NOR to draw conclusions which lead to other WP:reliable sources, as long as unsourced conclusions are not stated in the article text. For example, a death could be expected to involve a "coroner" and searching for that word is not a WP:NOR-vio. However, Guede's description raises the question of Sollecito's height. -Wikid77 21:23, 11 May 2011, revised 18:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian law treats public documents as free

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have also come to see that Italian copyright law allows great freedom of public documents: they are exempt from copyright, per Article 5 of the Italian law:

Article 5 - "The provisions of this Law shall not apply to the texts of official acts of the State or of public administrations, whether Italian or foreign." Italian Copyright 2003, p.3

See page 3 of full Copyright Statute: Italian Copyright Statute, Law for the Protection of Copyright and Neighboring Rights (hosted at UNESCO). That explains why, despite all the talk of lawsuits launched by Italian officials, no one has charged copyright infringement by websites having copies of the Micheli Judgment and Massei Motivation documents: they are free, exempt from copyright, according to the Italian Copyright Statute, linked above. I think any user can download a copy of those documents for local searching. Also, they can be ported onto Wikisource, with translations into English. I would think the same applies to photos provided by "public administrations". This is my point: every blog website has posted some police photos, but why are there no Italian lawsuits to stop use of those photos? -Wikid77 21:12, 13 May 2011, revised 18:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Undoing bias in the article

Latest comment: 13 years ago53 comments7 people in discussion

The article certainly omits a lot of information, and such omissions could be seen as a deliberate bias in contents. I think we should discuss possible changes to undo, or reverse, the current biases. Some options:

  • Restore the intro text about the crime: "Kercher's disrobed body was found under a duvet, on the floor of her bedroom, with stab wounds in the neck and evidence of partial strangulation. There was evidence of sexual contact, and 300 euros, 2 credit cards, 2 mobile phones, plus Kercher's house keys were missing" (and similar).
  • Drop the Knox-convicted part from the intro, because there seems to be a rush as to how few words stated in the intro before claiming "Knox was CONVICTED" (as a misleading phrase when the current re-trial is expected to last until the autumn). Instead, state, "Guede was convicted, as upheld in 2 appeals trials, with sentence reduced from 30 to 16 years. Knox and Sollecito are currently in a re-trial, based on re-examination of forensic evidence and key witnesses, with a jury of 8 expected to decide their case in autumn 2011." Using the term "convicted" for a U.S. reader gives the impression that a final verdict has been reached, and could only be overturned, by an appellate judge, if mistakes were made in the legal proceedings; instead, Knox/Sollecito are in a re-trial (trial de novo) to be judged by a 2nd jury of 8, not subject to the sole ruling of an American appellate judge as with a U.S. "conviction". Guede, by comparison, was convicted during his 2 appeals trials.
  • Avoid suppressing the evidence. It is time to re-add the section "Detailed forensic evidence" to overcome the bias which omits details of the bra clasp, bed pillow, Nike Outbreak 2 shoe-prints, double-DNA knife, luminol patches (etc.) claimed as WP:UNDUE details in the upper-text of the article. It is simply a WP:NPOV violation to continually omit the detailed forensic evidence; the article cannot claim to be NPOV-neutral when it omits the major details of the forensic evidence, as if the viewpoints of crime scene investigators do not count. An article cannot be NPOV-neutral and continually omit views about the detailed forensic data.

Other issues of bias should also be corrected. Any more suggestions? -Wikid77 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Drop the bulk of the long inflammatory quotation from John Kercher saying how evil Amanda is. I don't see what purpose it serves in a supposed encyclopedic article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The "long, inflammatory quotation" that you describe is all of one line long. It seems to me that far from correcting the issue of supposed bias, its removal would leave this part of the article with a distinct bias in favour of a particular defendant, especially given the existence of the "Support" section that follows the "Reaction" section. SuperMarioMan 05:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting cutting it down somewhat as it does nothing to inform the reader of any facts about the case. It seems to have been added for the primary purpose of whipping up hatred against Knox, which doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Cut it down to what? Kercher's commentary amounts to 33 words of text - what "bulk" is there? I would also argue that family responses are important, and do indeed inform the reader. Given that the article dedicates more than one paragraph to alleged anti-Americanism, I fail to see the compelling reason for which one line of the father's reaction is so harmful. SuperMarioMan 09:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it was added for the primary purpose of reporting what the victim's father said, which does seem appropriate for Wikipedia. pablo 09:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It's unnecessarily emotive and doesn't add anything factual to the article. It's a piece of character assassination by proxy which is why it was added to the article in the first place. The reference to it should stay in but the actual diatribe should be paraphrased and cut down to maintain NPOV and avoid being a hit piece or character assassination. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. It's a direct quotation from the victim's father. He's entitled to be emotive. You are speculating about why it was added to the article. pablo 10:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the motive of whoever added it, in its current form it serves no function other than that of character assassination by proxy and therefore needs revision. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a sourced direct quotation. It is no more 'character assassination' to include it than it is to include the fact that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were convicted of this crime, which Wikid maintains is somehow NPOV. pablo 10:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be a sourced quotation. That doesn't justify its inclusion. It's an attack on Amanda which has been shoehorned into the article with a nod and a wink because it comes out of the mouth of John Kercher. In my opinion the comment as it stands violates WP:BLP policies. His opinions about Amanda being nicknamed 'Foxy Knoxy' have absolutely zero to do with the crime. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I just edited the Kercher family reactions section to remove the irrelevant references to 'Foxy Knoxy' and Knox being a 'celebrity' (as though that's her fault). I did not remove anything about Kercher's belief that she is responsible for the murder. My edit was swiftly reverted with an inadequate vague citation of WP:NPOV. I hope to reinstate my edit unless an actual explanation of the reversion is forthcoming. But i would like a discussion about this issue before taking any action. Just letting everyone know. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
As the victim's father I think his views are relevant to the article (and in this case I think his views on the media portrayal of Knox is relevant). However the specific bit that Cody just removed, IMO, could be tightened up a bit. --Errant (chat!) 12:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Cody, in response to your comments above, consider re-reading WP:AGF. Incidentally, the term "Foxy Knoxy" has been used frequently in certain parts of the journalistic spectrum, so one reference to the nickname does not appear to me to be in flagrant violation of much at all. SuperMarioMan 12:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I tightened it a little to trim slightly the use of "quoted" words (never good practice), cut the second quote a little and removed the slightly POV word "maintained". --Errant (chat!) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's cool. It seems people are genuinely trying to achieve consensus. I won't rock the boat on this one any further. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Both of you had a point over this one IMO. His views on her "celebrity status" strike me as relevant, but the sentence didn't deal with it all that well. It could probably still be improved - a shed load of comma's in there still :D --Errant (chat!) 12:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Knox/Sollecito are being re-tried for this case, and there is no need to clutter the crime-text of the intro, since it is implied that there was a prior trial. Also, there has been talk of so-called "first-degree convictions" in Italy, so that is another issue to check. -Wikid77 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikid77, are you suggesting that Knox and Sollecito were not convicted of this crime? pablo 08:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Another point, Wikid. The section on 'support for Knox' says 'Knox's family and a number of supporters maintain that she and Sollecito have been unjustly convicted'. This seems deliberately phrased to imply that a tiny group is irrationally insisting on her innocence. No reference to any websites supporting her. This highly prejudiced wording and minimal content needs to be changed. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is a lone sentence that needs working & probably expanding. I'm guessing that "number of supporters" was used because no source was available to get a handle on the breadth and type of support behind Knox. I'm struggling to find a good one TBH. --Errant (chat!) 12:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
In any case, Knox has more than just "a number of supporters" - the phrasing seems to be something of an underestimation. I would recommend inverting the start of the sentence such that it begins, "Family and supporters of Knox..." SuperMarioMan 12:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Something along the lines of 'family and supporters' would do it. Nobody really knows how many supporters there are. It's kind of a nebulous concept. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
As for the rest of the sentence, "maintain" could benefit from substitution. To me, "argue" would seem to be a more neutral alternative. Phrasing such as "Family and supporters of Knox challenge/contest/dispute the fairness of the convictions/verdicts" could offer an even better solution. SuperMarioMan 12:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If anyone feels like working up a rephrasing of the section along the lines suggested by SMM, it has my vote. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
"To "maintain" innocence is the accepted and neutral way to say that you've argued you're innocent since the beginning of something. It seems an odd word to replace.LedRush (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
SMM's proposed changes were certainly a major improvement in my view, but you make a good point. If somebody wants to work up a proposed new version we could all take a look at it? I would do it myself except that I'm not focusing well today. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • How about: "Family and supporters of Knox dispute the justice of the verdicts, and maintain that Knox and Sollecito are innocent" (rather than "have been unjustly convicted")? Or is that too strong? SuperMarioMan 15:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Family and supporters of Knox dispute the guilty verdicts and continue to maintain the innocence of both Knox and Sollecito? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with either.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The sentence now reads: "Family and supporters of Knox dispute the guilty verdicts and maintain the innocence of Knox and Sollecito". This sounds neutral enough to me. I've omitted "continue to" and "both", since the two phrases seem a little redundant - Cody, I hope that you don't mind. SuperMarioMan 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. It's the kind of concise, neutral sentence we should be aiming for. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I will add the word "initial" as "initial guilty verdicts" to avoid confusion with the ongoing re-trial, where the jury of 8 has not yet reached a verdict. -Wikid77 18:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine with me. It's only one word so I hope everyone else is OK with that. What bugs me with the MoMK article is that there seems to be a lot of innuendo and unspoken implications in some parts. Today by collaborating we've come up with some phrasing that I think nobody on whatever side of the debate could object to. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to the addition of "initial". However, Wikid, to address the first point at the top of this section, I do not think that mentions of precise amounts of stolen money and other items merit inclusion in the lead section, when its purpose is to provide a summary of the article that follows. I've reverted this change for the time being - what is the rationale behind the references to money, credit cards, mobile phones and keys? SuperMarioMan 18:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Could there perhaps just be a quick general reference to the fact that money was stolen in the lead to the article? I don't mind where the information goes in the article as long as it's not put somewhere which might cause the reader to be msinformed or inadequately informed about the crime. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
See WP:LEDE about summarizing text, in the top section, so that it could "stand alone" and convey the meaning of the article. There's no way to just say "police discovered the body" and then imagine the remainder of the text could be deleted, about the stabbing, strangulation, missing 300 euros, 2 credit cards, 2 mobile phones, missing house keys, and all other details. Plus, WP:LEDE states to also "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies" (which have yet to be summarized). Continuing to delete such text from the lead section is a transparent and serious policy vio, and does not bode well for the future. -Wikid77 03:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with SMM, there is no way details like this belong in the lede. --John (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Surely Wikid's point is correct? Gutting the article of detail can't be a good thing. It's not like Wikipedia is charging us for server space. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead should contain a brief stand-alone overview of the article allowing a reader to be quickly introduced to the topic without being bogged down in detail. There is no need to stress the exact circumstances of how she was found - that is almost providing undue weight to that material (and will only lead to someone down the road arguing that "because that detail is there X detail should be there too", and the lead will become a whole article of its own :)). There is a lot of stuff not summarized in the lead at this point; please focus on that. --Errant (chat!) 09:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The matter of expanding the lead section is one that discussions on this talk page return to often. Certainly I think that there is a case for expansion - since the subject matter is complex, the current three paragraphs render the introduction a little on the short side. However, I have reverted Wikid's second edit for a number of reasons. For one, I still do not understand how references to "300 euros, 2 credit cards, 2 mobile phones, plus Kercher's house keys" are of such importance that a mention is required in the lead section (and in the first paragraph at that). Of all the aspects of the crime scene and events leading up to the murder, what is so special about these particular items? The edit offered nothing to demonstrate their significance. Cody's suggestion of a more general reference to stolen property holds merit - to me, giving exact numbers seems to be precisely the kind of detail and enumeration that introductions generally seek to avoid. The new second paragraph went into a similar level of detail in places (e.g. "...an Italian student who dated Knox for 1 week"), but I am also unsure of wording such as "...for also allegedly staging a crime scene and transporting a knife". The best course of action, I believe, would be to collaborate here and draft a new lead section that is satisfactory to all, and then replace the text in the article. SuperMarioMan 12:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it needs to be underlined that property was in fact stolen as an integral part of this crime. As such it should be briefly mentioned in the lead. I've come round to the view that it's essential for it to be there as per Wikid's view, while still embracing the new collaborative spirit which we now have on this article. I'm sure we can work it out. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

Ok, so how about this. The whole lead para is a right mish-mash anyway so here is a rewrite:

The murder of Meredith Kercher occurred in Perugia, Italy, on 1 November 2007. Kercher, a 21-year-old British university exchange student, shared an upstairs flat in the city with three other young women. Her body was found in her bedroom on the afternoon of 2 November by police and flatmates. Some of her property appeared to have been stolen.

Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 22:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem better - a good start. There is a lot that a rewritten lead section must summarise, so selection of items is an important consideration. SuperMarioMan 02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of her property was stolen. It did not appear to have been stolen. edit to add - other than that, this lead sounds good. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need to note that some of her stuff was stolen in the lede. Support omitting last sentence. --John (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Cody. "Appear" implies that the property wasn't stolen, while under all theories of the case, the property was stolen. It is an important detail that should remain in the lede.LedRush (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Already done. pablo 15:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
John; disagree, Guede is specifically convicted of theft, so it is directly part of the crime. @others; I couldn't think of a good way to word it earlier, but I now thought of a way after Cody's prompting. --Errant (chat!) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I see your point. Nevertheless the article is entitled "Murder of Meredith Kercher", not "Murder and theft of certain small items...". If this can be kept brief and focused I can live with it. --John (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keeping the content "brief and focused" would seem to be a good objective. I agree that the lead section should include a mention of missing or stolen items. Going into exact detail and listing items and distances, as seen in this recent edit, hardly seems to be within the remit of an introduction that is intended to give an overview of the topic and summarise its main points. SuperMarioMan 07:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I agree, it's unnecessary detail for the lead. Makes a clumsy sentence, too. pablo 08:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Events surrounding the murder -> Police interviews

Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

The below paragraph contains an error. My guess is it’s an artifact of editing.

Knox was arrested later on the morning of 6 November. That same day she made a written note to the police, partially retracting her earlier statements, explaining that she doubted her statements. Knox wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."[39] In June 2009 she repeated that description of her interrogation at trial, while a police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely".[40][41] She "stood by" her accusation of Lumumba, but said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder.[42] She denied involvement in the murder.[43] Knox's lawyer, summing up at the end of her trial, stated that the interviews over the course of several days had lasted a total of 53 hours, causing "stress and fear".[44] The police have denied that Knox was mistreated and she has been charged with slander in a separate trial.[45]’

The bolded sentence would follow logically from the sentence in Italics, but makes for an incorrect statement when placed as above, one sentence further on. As it stands, its reference (#42 – an article about the note given Nov 6th) has no value, if it is intended to refer to Knox’s testimony of at trial. I am guessing somewhere along the way the sentence between the italic part and the bold was spliced in. Btw, what the hey is “stood by” ( in quotes) supposed to mean? Is that an actual quotation? Or is it a way of using punctuation to clue me that I am supposed to add my own interpretation, or what?Moodstream (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Putting 'stood by' in scare quotes is an example of exactly the sort of innuendo I spoke about above on this page. It's rife in this article. Yesterday we made progress in rewritng the 'support for Knox' section and came up with a result everyone was happy with. Why don't you try a rewrite of the section you have issues with, remembering to be factual, neutral, and sticking to actual quotations from Knox? Post your proposed version here on the talk page, and let's see if we can all work together again like we did yesterday. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I really am stuck for time. Below is a brief update to the last part of the section. The sentence in bold is different from the existing text. The rest are just slight modifications.

Knox was arrested later on the morning of 6 November. That same day she made a written note to the police, partially retracting her earlier statements, explaining that she doubted her statements. Knox wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."[39] In June 2009 she repeated that description of her interrogation at trial, while a police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely".[40][41] She denied involvement in the murder.[43] Knox's lawyer, summing up at the end of her trial, stated that the interviews over the course of several days had lasted a total of 53 hours, causing "stress and fear".[44] The police have denied that Knox was mistreated. She has been charged with slander in a separate trial.[45]

Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements. He was detained for two weeks but was released after reliable witnesses placed him in his bar on the night of the crime.

  • With that change, text should be added that "Knox was only allowed to have a drink, or go to the restroom" after making the false confession; it's only 13 words, so objections as WP:UNDUE details, to prevent adding that short text will be more evidence of WP:DISRUPTION or WP:EDITWARRING by editors attempting to block improvements to the article. -Wikid77 18:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No real objections to the changes; other than to say the whole paragraph could be improved no end (i.e. made to read better). Wikid; the piece of rhetoric you use at the end is a form of rhetorical fallacy called "Poisoning the Well", basically trying to undermine any arguments against your preferred text on the flawed basis that any such arguments are from a position of disruption. As mentioned, that assertion is incorrect. You do use a lot of these rhetorical fallacies, so for the sake of making this whole process easier here this information about rhetorical fallacy is worth a read. --Errant (chat!) 18:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as the arguments about UNDUE are often used to block only certain edits, I suspect that your warning of poisoning the well would have been better suited for other editors whose major contributions seem to be making sarcastic or condescending comments whenever other editors state an opinion.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just trying to mitigate having the pick around bad rhetoric. It is distracting, and I think it is important to step away from this whole pre-emptive argument thing because it just begs the question. --Errant (chat!) 21:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand. I only wish your warnings would fly both ways.LedRush (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine, Errant, keep up your WP:BATTLEground mentality, but as I see it, "13 words" is called "counting" and my comment, about 13 not being WP:UNDUE details, is called "Truth" and you are only digging yourself into a lower hole, by pretending there is no WP:DISRUPTION of the article, when 2 times by WP:EDITWARring, the text about "stabbing" and "strangulation" and "300 euros" was removed from the WP:LEDE, to leave the "stand-alone" summary as only "police found her body" as a summary of the crime evidence. -Wikid77 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I certainly see these warnings and the general tendencies on this article as going in one unmistakeable direction, despite some very minor recent compromises which I've tried my best to be positive about. Why is ErrantX exercising what seems to be total control over this article? Why specifically him? Who put him in charge of anything, and why are his decisions final? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The obstruction, against adding text, reminds me of the "tag-team" idea, from months ago, that a group of editors appeared to be "taking turns" trying to keep details out of the article, deleting whole sections, so that thousands of readers could never read details to understand why many sources reasoned how Knox/Sollecito were railroaded into wrongful convictions, based on false, falsified or illegally withheld evidence, controlled by prosecutor(s) convicted of judicial misconduct in cases years earlier, but allowed to continue prosecution, seen as an international controversy. I don't think the article has ever stated, that when Guede was convicted in October 2008, Sollecito asked his lawyer when he would be allowed to go home, now, unaware that he was still being sent to trial on the refuted, marginal evidence. Also, Sollecito having finished his computer-engineering degree, while in custody, was accepted into graduate school at the end of 2009. Such details are required, per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, to provide balanced viewpoints about his activities during this time. -Wikid77 05:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Trust me. With words like "disruption", "tag team" and edit warring (it takes two to tango remember) the battleground is not with me. Now; I agree with this tweak. And have suggested a compromise above. Bottom line is; consensus is largely against you on the detail in the lead - If you're unhappy with that all of the normal dispute resolution avenues are still open. (RFC for example) Perhaps we can focus on that... instead of throwing out roadblocks of text. --Errant (chat!) 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being obtuse, but was is even the edit in questions now, Wikid77? Regarding the tone of the board: it is far better than before. Let's just focus on the edit you'd like to make and discuss it as it is. If disruption and wikilawyering becomes a problem, we'll address it yet again then.LedRush (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For this one change (repeated below), are we ready to swap out the old for the new?

Old - Knox was arrested later on the morning of 6 November. That same day she made a written note to the police, partially retracting her earlier statements. Knox wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."[39] She also said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder.[40] She denied involvement in the murder.[41] In June 2009 she repeated her description of the interrogation at trial, while a police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely".[42][43] Knox's lawyer, summing up at the end of her trial, stated that the interviews over the course of several days had lasted a total of 53 hours, causing "stress and fear".[44] The police have denied that Knox was mistreated and she has been charged with slander in a separate trial.[45]

Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements. He was detained for two weeks until the arrest of Guede. Initially, doubts about his alibi were reported in the press,[27] but ultimately he was completely exonerated.[46]


New - Knox was arrested later on the morning of 6 November. That same day she made a written note to the police, partially retracting her earlier statements, explaining that she doubted her statements. Knox wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."[39] In June 2009 she repeated that description of her interrogation at trial, while a police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely".[40][41] She denied involvement in the murder.[43] Knox's lawyer, summing up at the end of her trial, stated that the interviews over the course of several days had lasted a total of 53 hours, causing "stress and fear".[44] The police have denied that Knox was mistreated. She has been charged with slander in a separate trial.[45]

Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements. He was detained for two weeks but was released after reliable witnesses placed him in his bar on the night of the crime.

Whoops, I changed the section unilaterally without realizing that this was the new plan. I'm fine with this text.LedRush (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

German Police Name

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I got the following message on my talk page:

"Hello,

you were the last logged in user on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. it´s protected in the discussion site and i have no account. so i would you ask to change something in the article:

[here]:...On 20 November 2007, the German transport police arrested Guede on a train near Mainz, where he was apprehended for travelling without a ticket...

...The Transportpolizei (German for "Transport Police") WAS the transit police of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) [here]

...Bahnpolizei was the name of the former Railway police of West Germany... [here]

from there:

In 1992 the railway security mission was transferred from the Bahnpolizei to the Bundesgrenzschutz (Federal Border Guard Force). The BGS had already taken on these duties in 1990 for the territory of the former East Germany, replacing the former East German Transportpolizei. The Bundesgrenzschutz was renamed [Bundespolizei[ (Federal Police) on July 1, 2005, and this force is currently responsible for security and passenger checks on the German railway system.

so it wasn´t the Transport Police who´s arrested him, it was the Federal Police (Bundespolizei). It´s just that the term Transport Polizei is (was) well known for police squads that had trouble with football (soccer) away fans in east germany.

could you please change the term? Thank you. 77.189.185.158 (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)"

I plan to make the change, but I don't have strong feelings on this. I just wanted you to know from where this was coming.LedRush (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox article

Latest comment: 13 years ago69 comments10 people in discussion
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. No result forthcoming.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Isnt it about time that Amanda Knox gets her own article on Wikipedia?. She has had so much media attention and even a TV-movie made about her in particular. Oprah Winfrey had her parents as guest for example too. No matter what people think Amanda Knox has becomed the center of attention in this case,even in comparison ot the victim. Whenever something happens at one of her trials or basically anything about Knox it becomes world headline news. I know that there are many anti-criminal article users here but lets be realistic for once.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone tries to write such an Amanda Knox article it gets hijacked by guilters and merged into this biased article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That is why I am bringing this up. To find a good solution.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have re-started a draft version, at User:Wikid77/Amanda_Knox, but I am thinking of moving that page into the WP:Article_Incubator to encourage more editors to expand the text. I think most people would allow the article to re-enter the main article space, with Amanda Knox as having "individual notability", due to all the coverage about the film by Lifetime (TV network) and plans to show that film in Italy. -Wikid77 17:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think its time for Knox to have her own article. Lets face facts she has reached notability for her own person.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I still can't see notability outside this one event to merit a biography. There is zero point to such an article, one about her trial would be a better bet. --Errant (chat!) 18:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. If another article is to be broken out related to Knox, it should be about the trial(s) and not Knox herself. I find it interesting that no one has asked to create one on Sollecito which I wouldn't be in favor of, either.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't be interesting at all why Sollecito doesn't need an article and Knox does. It is a simple function of how much press they get and how they are covered in the news.LedRush (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A lot of media coverage... about the trial. I note the draft biography of Knox is 80% about the trial. And of the rest half of it is about her childhood and the rest about being in Italy (which could be argued as relevant to the trial anyway). Nothing else significant exists about this women. --Errant (chat!) 19:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to read more media coverage. [4]LedRush (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is difficult to see the draft entering the main namespace as a free-standing article, at least in its current state. Much of the information remains duplicative of sections of this article, and further expansion is needed. SuperMarioMan 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, that isn't the way this issue should be decided. If the subject is worthy of inclusion, we should green-light it and then let the normal editorial process take control of the article. The idea that the article needs to exist in a form acceptable to all (an obvious impossibility) before existing is just a way to ensure that it never exists. The simple fact is that Knox is exceptionally notable, and there isn't any WP policy that comes close to blocking the entry of one.LedRush (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, as I suggested above, the current draft could do more to assert that Knox has exceptional notability as an individual. As far as I can tell, the sections with the most original content are "Early life" and "Media depictions", but still the latter contains a paragraph that essentially duplicates part of the relevant "Media coverage" noted in this article. Since the concept of a separate Knox BLP has been rejected in the past and the content redirected as a result of either talk page discussion or an AfD, there should be a focus on expanding the draft as it stands so that all concerns regarding WP:BLP1E and WP:CONTENTFORK are categorically refuted. SuperMarioMan 06:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Contentforking is a real issue, but it is one that will have to be continuously monitored after the article is made. Of course, BLP1E is not an issue at all seeing as Knox is not a low profile individual. In fact, her profile seems to be rising in this wave of media attention.LedRush (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, WP:CONTENTFORK is more of a concern (to me, at least) than WP:BLP1E. Those who contend that BLP1E still applies would at the very least have to admit that there is certainly no longer a clear-cut case for it, and that none has existed for quite some time. As I see it, it is now a case of ensuring that the article produced explicitly demonstrates how Knox is notable as an individual and that it is neutral in tone. Moving the draft to the article incubator would be a good step forward. SuperMarioMan 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what proportion arrive at this page after searching on 'Amanda Knox' vs searching on 'Meredith Kercher'. I believe it's clear from the outset that the vast majority are searching for information on Amanda Knox. Amanda Knox is not famous/infamous for her alleged role in the killing of Meredith Kercher, in the way that John Wilkes Boothe is for killing Lincoln, it's just the nature of the crime, the youth and background of the alleged participants, and so forth. Therefore, there is no good reason this is the 'Meredith Kercher' page. The page isn't here because Meredith Kercher was killed, and would not exist at all if Amanda Knox were not accused of her murder.Moodstream (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Amanda Knox is not famous/infamous for her alleged role in the killing of Meredith Kercher" - really? Do tell, what is Amanda Knox famous for? pablo 14:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If you actually read the argument and tried to understand it in good faith, you would understand that what the user is arguing is that Booth is famous not just for the murder but who he murdered. Knox, on the other hand, is famous because she was charged with murder of someone, not the murder of a specific, famous person. Moodstream was arguing the relative fame of the victim and the perpetrator here. If you tried to engage people honestly, rather than pull quotes out of context to make snarky and unhelpful posts, you could actually help this article.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I did read the argument and have read similar statements of its general premise many times. Amanda Knox has no inherent notability other than her involvement* in this murder and the ensuing legal proceedings. To state that "the page would not exist at all if Amanda Know were not accused of her murder" is patently bollocks.*note that the use of this word does not imply guilt. It implies involvement, in the same way that witnesses, police, lawyers etc are 'involved' pablo 14:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If you read the argument, why did you misconstrue it, and why don't you address it? (And the idea that if Knox weren't charged, and if no other attractive, foreign woman were charged that there would be an article on this seems highly unlikely. Let's pretend that this is a simple break in which led to rape/murder committed by one person against another. There is no way that gets an article. None. Of course, this is a different discussion.)LedRush (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a fact that without Amanda Knox this trial and this murder would probably not have reached the international attention that it has. Knox definitly deserves to have her own article on Wikipedia, notability for her has been reached. Even a tv-movie has been made about her in particular only focusing for a few seconds on the crime itself the rest is about Amanda Knox. To say that she is not worthy of an article about her is totally biased and false.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
What the hell does foreignness or the fact that some (well you) find Knox attractive have to do with anything? No it's not a simple rape/murder. It's an immensely complicated one. The identity of the perpetrator(s) (and, indeed, the victim) is of secondary importance to the complexity. If Knox were unattractive it would not lessen that complexity. pablo 15:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
It's in fact a very simple rape/murder made complex by the bizarre conspiracy theories of the deranged prosecutor. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually it is really a complex case. No clear cut evidence of Knoxs guilt on the other hand nothing that says she didnt do it either. So to say that it is just your average murder/rape case is wrong. Peace.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The case is complex, but we don't know whether the crime is. Regardless, countless rape murders happen each year, and none generate this type of media coverage and few even make local news headlines.LedRush (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
BabbaQ, it's not necessary to provide proof you didn't commit a crime if you are accused. You're sounding like the Perugia police. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Please Cody, take my advice to heart if you dont have a clue about what you are saying, dont say it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to the burden of proof. I'm not sure you do though, judging by your comments. But I'm not here to argue! Today I'm working constructively with other editors! I respect your opinion! CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Cheers.;)--BabbaQ (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Green-light for article is lit: The times have changed, and an article for Knox would be acceptable now. The new article "Pippa Middleton" (created 4 January 2011) shows that a person can come from a pleasant background, working as a party planner, and have a separate article, even without being on trial in a high-profile international murder case spanning 3 years. Knox worked at a coffee shop in Seattle and probably helped to plan parties, as well. -Wikid77 17:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I Support this new article.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Jesus, leave the poor sodding girl alone. She is notable for this one, terrible event in her life - there is no need to scavenge every insignificant little detail of her childhood with which to hack together and article of minimal historical interest! These craven attempts to drag all of her past and present into the limelight is the realm of the gutter press, not a serious encyclopaedia. It will be a target for those trying to laud her as an angel, and those trying to denigrate her. Give it a few years; it may be that her life develops significance outside of the trial. --Errant (chat!) 18:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think "leave that sodding girl alone" is a Wikipedia policy. In fact, there is no wikipedia policy to prevent a Knox article, and she is obviously notable enough to merit one. Your insulting and biased personal attacks above does nothing to change these facts. You're better than that post.LedRush (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, sorry. "These" was a misplaced word :) I am referring to the newspapers as craven.. we are above such things, is the point I meant to make. FWIW "leave that sodding girl alone" is very very much the core of our BLP policy, and always has been. In fact, it is the crucial basic understanding of BLP that every editor should understand. I still strongly support an article on their trial as workable, until such a time as someone can explain to me how a biography has encyclopaedic interest. Nothing else about her is of significance, interest or notability. Anything about her childhood is, at best, trivial. We write biographies for people who have enduring notability for multiple reasons and for whom a biography spanning significant and encyclopaedic parts of their life (shored up with small pieces of their insignificant life) has interest. Sure, we might not do a brilliant job of removing those biographies who fail such criteria but I don't think that is a reason to cave into instances where there is little encyclopaedic merit :) I stand by what I said; leave her in peace. Deal with the murder and trial. --Errant (chat!) 18:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Given proposals to expand the coverage of forensics evidence, the concept of a trial(s) article (it could include related lawsuits) seems viable. SuperMarioMan 19:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Errant; our BLP policy is non-negotiable. --John (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing about a Knox article that would necessarily conflict with the BLP policy. Phrasing it as such is disingenuous and not very conducive to honest discussion.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, there is no need to pry into her private life. If we put the ideas of a Knox trial article next to a Knox biography article I don't see what extra content the latter could contain that is of relevance or significance, but if anyone can point to specifics then I could be convinced. --Errant (chat!) 20:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess we don't disagree, as I don't believe we should pry into her private life either. That sounds a bit like OR anyway. No, I would merely like to include the info reported in reliable sources. Either the vast number of similar articles, or the specific outline I suggested earlier, could serve as a template.LedRush (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Probably the simplest thing to do would be to rename this article 'The Amanda Knox Murder Trial.' The victim isn't really notable enough to have an article with her name in the title. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that that is a bad idea; the article is about more than Amanda Knox's trial(s). pablo 13:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The victim may not be not notable in isolation, but her murder certainly is - hence the title "Murder of Meredith Kercher". Renaming this article to the effect of "Amanda Knox murder trial" would be a mistake, for a number of reasons. For one thing, the murder precedes the trials, so such a move would be like stating effect before cause. Perhaps there is provision for a "Trial of Amanda Knox" article on Wikipedia, but that would have to take the form of a dedicated sub-article that is able to assert independent notability without serving as a content fork. Furthermore, since the case involves three defendants, the title "Trial(s) of (Amanda) Knox, (Raffaele) Sollecito and (Hermann) Guede" would appear to be more logical, although the order of names could prove to be contentious with regard to WP:WEIGHT. SuperMarioMan 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The murder is notable, but only because of its relation to Amanda Knox. Raffaelle Sollecito and Rudy Guede are likewise only notable because of their connection to Amanda Knox. Basically this whole article is about Amanda Knox and it's blatantly obvious that most users who end up at this article were searching for information on Amanda Knox. I therefore maintain that the article should be renamed accordingly. The victim is not notable and never will be. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither the victim or the others are notable; because they are only significant for one event. The event is notable, and this is the naming scheme widely employed. --Errant (chat!) 17:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The 'event' isn't really the murder but the subsequent trial. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Compare this article to Murder of James Bulger: the links Robert Thompson and Jon Venables either point to a disambiguation page or redirect to the main murder article. It too is arguably a case in which the defendants have received far more attention and coverage than the victim - however, the murder itself is the most notable topic of all. SuperMarioMan 17:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with SuperMario and Errant that the article as currently titled is the best fit for covering these events, I completely disagree with any notion that a Knox article is unwarranted because she is notable in relation to one event. Wikipedia policy, and common sense, work strongly against such a notion. This is evidenced by the very clear standards of BLP1E and the fact that many less notable individuals famous solely for their relationship to one crime have biographical articles on them.LedRush (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. --John (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Methinks you need to follow your own advice.LedRush (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So why does Ted Bundy have an article as opposed to a series of articles devoted to his victims? Can anyone name one of his victims without recourse to Google? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh, because Bundy is a highly notable serial killer, probably one of the most notable of all time and certainly of the 20th Century, about whom countless books have been written, and whose victims spanned a number of years and events. Are you seriously claiming Knox is as notable as Bundy? :D --Errant (chat!) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
She is about twice as notable as Ted Bundy judging by Google's search results. Multiple books, TV programmes and films exist about Knox. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
True, but as many books, TV programmes and films as Bundy? To answer the original question: Bundy, as a serial killer, would clearly seem to be deserving of his own article - in the encyclopaedic sense, his victims are of much less note. This article, however, relates to a single murder, and can therefore form the hub from which a potential future "Trials" or Knox article can spring. Regarding Google, I would recommend having a look at WP:GHITS. SuperMarioMan 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Lol.... Try WP:GOOGLEHITS. Also, seeing as Bundy died in 1989 it not at all surprising that less internet coverage exists about him (that coverage does exists speaks a lot... if the same level of enduring coverage of Knox exists in 20 years time I will totally support you on this!). Knox has more Google Hits than Winston Churchill and Queen Victoria, is she more notable than them ;) --Errant (chat!) 20:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I wish people would have to read WP policies they link to before linking to them. I also wish people linking them would actually say something about the policies they think applies to the instant case, instead of using it as a condescending way of saying they are right without any proof.LedRush (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but in this case the argument was poor. Those policies exist so that we dont't have to express the same points over and over.. but if you insist; in this case Google hits is not a good judge because Knox seems to have a very vocal groundswell of blogging support, plus it is a modern news event so will always end up with a certain number of Google hits. But it is not all that useful for establishing notability. And (as I did actually explain) is not a good way to argue Knox is more notable than Bundy. GHITS even points people at the relevant biography guidelines: Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking) also, I have read pretty much all of the main policies, and most of the minor ones. Usually several times. And in the case of Biographies, my speciality, I have a pretty deep knowledge of them. So I am a little frustrated at these constant "have you actually read that policy" response - the answer is yes, and the reason I am linking them is because they are relevant --Errant (chat!) 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Those policies may exist so you don't have to repeat them, but when you use them in ways which ignore the policies themselves, it just isn't helpful and can be downright rude. Google hits "can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is", it is merely not dispositive in measuring notability. BLP1E is a guideline, not a strict rule prohibiting certain articles; and additionally, BLP1E doesn't relate to this issue on its face, as I have pointed out before. When people like John merely through out a reference to a policy which I've already argued doesn't apply, it comes off as being an uncivil jerk and not as constructive. And, quite honestly, I don't care if you're frustrated about the "have you read that policy" response. If you make posts which indicate a misunderstanding of the policy, and at the same time "laugh out loud" at other editor's opinions, you should be frustrated more often.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but Cody was arguing that Knox was more notable than Bundy based on Google hits, that is what GHITS is for :) Also BLP1E, the intent is to preclude biographies that consist almost entirely of one event, as in this case. --Errant (chat!) 22:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
You should be sorry as you've misread Cody's post and misread BLP1E. Cody clearly articulated that part of his assessment on notability revolved around media attention other than googlehits. And BLP1E doesn't "preclude" anything, it is a guideline. And seeing as there have been vocal and long disagreements as to whether it applies at all in this case (because, I believe, the second prong of the test doesn't apply), it is rude to simply link to it as a condescending way to indicate someone is wrong. That the person doing it is wrong on the policy just makes it worse.LedRush (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
[EC]To be clear, there is a huge difference between saying "the WP on googlehits makes it clear that although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." and "you're wrong because of WP:GHITS". The latter statement is rude and untrue. And my main complain above was with John. You and (to a much lesser extent SMM) just happened to do the same thing on a smaller scale immediately after he did, and back to back.LedRush (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to close or !vote

Frustrating is seeing a sockpuppet stir things up...again. This thread seems to be devolving and I'm not sure that anything is constructive here. Considering that plus the fact that no compelling argument has been made (nor a consensus reached) and that this has been through AfD several times...I move that we either close thread or !Vote so that we stop beating a dead horse.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you're calling someone a sockpuppet, do you have evidence to back it up? If not, you are treading on thin ice with regards to civility.LedRush (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
BabbaQ, who started this thread, is a sockpuppeteer and currently blocked. As such, they don't count towards any consensus that may form. I move to close thread per WP:DENY.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Certainly - go ahead. I've commented in the discussion, so I'm reluctant to do this myself. SuperMarioMan 23:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
By all means, close the thread. But not because of WP:DENY.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
A vote would be useless as it doesn't matter what we decide here, right? Also, when you say things like "no compelling argument has been made", it merely makes people want to discuss this. Seeing as likely opposition to a Knox article will be centered around one group of editors who edit this article, it doesn't seem to make sense to allow dangling assumptions about wikipedia policy to just lay out there.LedRush (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
By "no compelling argument...", I mean that no one seems to have been swayed one way or the other by the discussion. Looks like it is going in circles. As far as the !vote idea, I believe it would be bad form for someone from the group of participants to go against any consensus which may form here and create the article anyway. If such an article would be a product of this discussion...let it be a product of consensus, correct?.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, the Amanda Knox redirect has its own talk page. This is not the first time that the possibility of a separate article (whatever its subject - person or trial) has been discussed, and it probably will not be the last. I too believe that the discussion has rather outlived its purpose, and would endorse closure at this point. SuperMarioMan 22:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Perguia_Shock

Latest comment: 13 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I wasn't sure where to ask this, so if it is wrong here please remove it. Should it be noted that the Blog PerguiaShock that was shut down was actually put back up, literally in almost hours, and carried by another server and country? Of course all of this with Franks approval. --Truth Mom (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and it possibly does deserve a brief mention somewhere - it's pretty peripheral though. I don't know why Frank's approval would be necessary though. pablo 12:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If a source exists, I support this. --Errant (chat!) 13:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
RSs exist for taking down the blog, but only ones we generally consider unreliable (though the first one below might be ok) talk about it going back up in Sweden. For taking down the blog: [5] and [6]. For it going to Sweden [7] and [8].LedRush (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


So, is the idea that we would have a section under the "Support for Knox and Sollecito" section on blogs, have one introductory sentence saying which blogs are out there (meaning, which blogs are mentioned in RSs, not every blog, of course), and another sentence saying perugia shock was shut down and reopened?LedRush (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the article already contains the text

On 10 May 2011 a blog written by Frank Sfarzo, and critical of Perugia law enforcement's conduct in the Kercher case, was shut down by court order. The order was granted by a Florence court to Mignini on the grounds of defamation.[130] The Committee for the Protection of Journalists sent a letter to the Italian government protesting the action.[131]

so all that needs to be added is some sourced text about its renaissance. pablo 14:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound has just made this edit. I am going to revert it but wanted to explain why first. Firstly he is re-adding the external link again; Perugia shock is an advocacy site and not a good external link. The second reason is that the new prose is saying precisely the same thing as the current text - just with more words. Writing in a concise manner is important, the new wording is clunky and starting to lengthen. This is a very minor side issue and we agreed that was how to deal with it. --Errant (chat!) 19:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You guys are 100% right on the external links (has anyone warned RockSound about 3RR?), but I actually thought his description is much easier to follow than the current. Of course, his language could have been more concise, but sometimes omitting a lot of information makes it difficult to understand, especially for readers who don't know as much about the case as we do. Regardless, couldn't the information about the site going back up be restored? I would think it is best to start from RockSound's writing and then try and pare it down.LedRush (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have had a word, if anyone wants to add, or clarify, anything please go ahead. pablo 23:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I kept the bit about it coming back - a better source would be good though. --Errant (chat!) 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
If we can source the date Mignini filed the suite I support adding that, although I am cautious of this minor scuffle getting over-covered. --Errant (chat!) 20:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, a good revert - I was considering restoring the original text myself. While the new wording posed problems, Perugia Shock hardly seems to pass the criteria set down at WP:ELNO for inclusion as an external link. Furthermore, if that particular site is to be linked at the foot of the article, then balance would surely demand that a whole host of other blogs or forums (whether advocating guilt or advocating innocence) are included also - and that certainly would not be appropriate. SuperMarioMan 20:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this should belong in a different section, but it seems to me that the blog-advocacy sites for this crime get more media attention than I've ever seen in relation to other crimes. Even if my estimation is wrong, couldn't we introduce some of the most popular sites (from both camps and as mentioned in RSs) in the support for Knox/Sollecito and the Kercher sections? I would think that a sentence or two would be enough.LedRush (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that many of them are advocacy and contain swathes of unreliable content and strong points of view. I think it is a good idea to mention that these sites exist (if we can RS it, with some analysis) because this does have a lot of internet following. But naming the various sites, or linking to them seems dubious. FWIW most crimes have a decent online following, this case has dragged on a bit which is why they are still fairly prominent. There are blogs that advocate about crimes from, say, the 80's so Knox is not particularly unique. --Errant (chat!) 20:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

r.e. the new content: the current source is somewhat unclear but seems to suggest that the site was taken down after a finding of defamation, so a source thatt more clearly supports the new wording would be appropriate. For the record; not coming to the talk page to discuss his edits as suggested and instead throwing claims of censorship into edit summaries has made me highly disincline to accommodate RockSound. So I will step away and let other people take this one. --Errant (chat!) 20:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Usually we don't link to blogs at all unless they are neutral and add to the understanding of the article's subject. Now that the Perugia shock blog had sime minor attention in the media there is the possibillity to add it into the article (like it appears in the article at the time I'm typing this) but it's our call how much weight to give it. Surely it doesn't belong in the EL's section like all the other blogs don't belong there either.TMCk (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This part of the story needs better sourcing. Personally, I suspect it may be interesting, but at the moment we it is covered by a newsblog, an internet-only local newsite and the CPJ, which is a primary source. Given that the article covers an international news story, I think we should be demanding a higher standard of sourcing for associated sideshows. --FormerIP (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
This source says the following, In February Mignini, who is known for harassing journalists who get too close to his investigations, filed a lawsuit against Perugia Shock for “defamation, carried out by means of a Web site.” here is the link to it, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/amanda-knox-trial-blogger-silenced-by-google/2011/05/16/AFofFp4G_blog.html , the court document shows 23/02/11 ( have patients please I am trying to learn how to post all this) thank you Kindly --Truth Mom (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That source is a blog, talking about another blog. FormerIP's point about the standard of sourcing is a valid one. pablo 05:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a Washington Post Blog. It also seems to have editorial control and a clear association with the Washington Post. And it is used only for saying the blog was put back up (everything else is covered by a newspaper).LedRush (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
No comment on editorial control, it might have, might not. I know what it's being used to source, and have no objection to its use for that. However FormerIP's point about the standard of sourcing is a valid one. pablo 14:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
My point is: has this been picked up by any major news sources. If so, fine. If not, we need to maintain a standard generally. We can't pick and choose. Material which, IMO, is valid for the article, has been removed for appearing in The Daily Beast and the Daily Mail, which are RS. This aspect of the story is only noteworthy if it has proved to have legs. BTW, LedRush, West Seattle Herald doesn't appear to be an actual newspaper, it's a website. --FormerIP (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Major news covers Perugia Shock

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Naturally, the act of Google Inc. to shutdown the Perugia Shock blog (now PerugiaShock.com), from Blogspot.com, as noted in the article, gained a lot of publicity. Here are some:

  • MSNBC (from KING 5 Seattle) - "Amanda Knox trial blogger shut down", May 11, 2011: MSN63.
  • NWCN (Washington/Oregon/Idaho) - "NWCN.com Washington - Oregon - Idaho", May 11, 2011: NWCN2

In American news reporting, the larger regional and national networks repeat and elevate local stories because U.S. reporters are required to abide by high standards of honesty, called "journalism" in the U.S. (as opposed to "tabloid journalism" or sensationalism); some U.S. reporters are not allowed to narrate commercial ads, to avoid perceptions of bias. The typical honesty of U.S. reporters has been required for decades, and that is why many U.S. reporters have been feared by some politicians (e.g. Richard Nixon).

Also, note how the Perugia Shock blog has been reported in other international reports about the murder case. In the past, Google has required about 3 weeks to index a newly-named website, such as Perugiashock.com (renamed), so the current website indexing could be viewed as a positive action by Google to restore Perugia Shock under a new URL. Check Google Search for: site:Perugiashock.com (currently only 17 webpages, versus 427 as old website) for growth, as the website indexing expands. A website can mark some webpages for no-indexing by Robots.txt or "robots nofollow" but otherwise, all hundreds or thousands of webpages, in each website, have been indexed by Google spiders, after a few weeks. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the shutting down is pretty well sourced (those sources are ok... but we seem to be using better ones, with less invective). What would be really good is a source that discusses it coming back up. As to the rest... please can you stop speculating on the talk page, you've been told about this before... it all seems to tangential and irrelevant. i.e. no sources... --Errant (chat!) 08:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd certainly like to see some sources discussing the website coming back up. (Also for the the comparative honesty of US journalists v journalists from other countries, although that's not really relevant to this article, I'm just curious). pablo 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Pablo, the difference is, in the US we separate news and tabloid pretty clearly. Errant, I have a hard time understanding your last idea. What is "i.e. sources" referring to?LedRush (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your faith is touching, separating news reporting from sensationalism is hardly unique to the US (nor particularly a feature of US media) though. pablo 19:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was pointing out that the rest of the post was a large block of unsourced speculation (?) and was asking why it was posted, because the aim is unclear :) [it's inaccurate speculation btw] --Errant (chat!) 14:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, you don't need sources to discuss issues on a talk page. But what speculation are you talking about? You mean google reposting it?LedRush (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The bit about journalism in the US seems irrelevant & I don't understand why Wikid77 has included it. The bit about Google combines some knowledge of the technical process with some speculation.... and again I'm struggling to understand why it was posted. Is it a suggestion for content? In which case are there any sources. Simple query really if it is not a suggestion for content and is just... speculation/commentary we've been over this before; this is not the place to think out loud --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if it's a suggestion for improvement to the article it needs to be clarified. If it isn't, what's the point of raising it? --John (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This may not be a forum, but it is the perfect place to think out loud. Not every idea about improving the article comes fully armored from our heads; some need time to ferment, aided by constructive reactions to the thoughts. By exchanging ideas and knowledge, we get to better understand the underlying issues, and therefore write a better article. When Wikid expresses his ideas this innocuously, criticisms seem more mean than constructive.LedRush (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • shrug* Apparently I don't see the underlying issues in this section, but if others do then fine. To me it looks like some opinion, totally unrelated to article content. It looks like a load of nonsense to me. And, yes, I am being a bit moody because, frankly, this is reaching a point way beyond tedium. --Errant (chat!) 15:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If this is tedius, don't extend it with unconstructive comments. The nature of the commenting and the tone of the board are not constants over which you have no control.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The local-to-regional news connection is hinted in "Network affiliate" where the U.S. news is coming from "our affiliate station" but that article needs to be expanded to explain the copyright considerations when local news is repeated at a regional or national level, as accessed from a local affiliated station. I had noted that issue as a reason why other news-websites do not carry a news report: they must be careful when repeating a copyrighted report. The Google SEO process, to re-index Perugiashock.com, is a company-proprietary secret, so there are unlikely to be many sources about that, and I respect their position, and that is why I only gave a tiny portion of what I know about Google site-indexing for PageRank, but read "Robots.txt" and search: site:Perugiashock.com, as sources about the other aspects. Thank you for requesting sources, as that indicates the need for more sourced text to be added to our articles about these subjects. -Wikid77 15:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • For your edification; Google publishes plenty of technical detail about their indexing process, just nothing about the ranking process. The site has a lot of backlinks, very quickly, so no wonder it was indexed quickly. FWIW the size of Google's infrastructure means it is rare for a new site to remain un-indexed for more than a day. --Errant (chat!) 15:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Errant, where are the sources for what you just claimed? Do you understand why other people are suspicious of your incorrect comments, when you do not even bother to provide sources, after insisting others provide them? Let me provide sources, for what I noted about Google:
• Google describes PageRank as 1 of 200 indexing factors - See "PageRank - Google", Google.com, web: G-tech.
• "My site isn't indexed yet!" - See "FAQ: Crawling, indexing & ranking", Google.com (web: G-FAQ-notindexed), which states, "Crawling and indexing are processes which can take some time and which rely on many factors. In general, we cannot make predictions or guarantees about when or if your URLs will be crawled or indexed. ..." If most new sites were indexed in 1 day, it is unlikely to have a "Frequently Asked Question" about "My site isn't indexed yet!". Instead, for years, the new-website indexing has been typically slow, which makes sense to deter rapid indexing of spam websites.
Folks, when I write something on the talk-page, I am fairly certain about the facts; however, since others tend to disagree and are often wrong, then I will try to add more sources so there might be fewer conflicts about the correct information I have posted. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I was talking about sources referring to the content you seemed to be suggesting for the article (i.e. special treatment by Google). Based on my technical expertise, you are incorrect in parts of your speculation; http://research.google.com is the best place to start. I'd point out that despite being fairly certain of your facts you seem to have plucked "3 weeks" out of the air..my figure, at least, is based on my ample real world experience. --Errant (chat!) 17:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I came across additional sources on the Perugia Shock incident but didn't include them before since it seemed like there was already enough. I will go back and try to find them. RockSound (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Knife contained deadly evidence of: pasta

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A leaked report indicates the "double-DNA knife" was scraped for residue, which matched a test for starch: pasta or bread (etc.). We should wait for the official court hearings, rescheduled for July 2011, but be prepared that the leaked information is true, and the knife blade did not have any evidence of human tissue.

In preparing the article for the results of the independent analysis, by 2 experts at La Sapienza University (in Rome), who re-testing the forensic evidence, be prepared to write some shocking results, so perhaps, provide multiple sources about the results of knife and bra-clasp testing. Also, according to the Massei Report, the clasp residue, collected from the 2 bra-clasp hooks, was divided into 2 samples, where the 2nd sample should be available, for DNA testing, from refrigerated evidence storage. The 1st sample matched to Kercher and partly Sollecito, in a ratio of 6-to-1 (see: Massei), but there is no way to predict if the 2nd sample will only match Kercher or others. Anyway, these are issues to bear in mind when considering the DNA hearings to be held in July. -Wikid77 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Time Magazine published an article on the leaks about the DNA :http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2061544,00.html RockSound (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC).

The Sun

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The Sun can be a reliable source for some statements, and not for others. Generally, it is ok for sourced news [9] and not for tabloid gossip, which appears to be its bread and butter, right?LedRush (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It's at the bottom end of the British papers; I'd be inclined to just look for other sources At the end of the day if the content is reliable, better sources will have picked it up (or, rather, the Sun is probably picking it off them). I'd tend to avoid it for opinions (especially in this case). --Errant (chat!) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I echo that. Really not a good source to introduce into an article about such a contentious topic. The same information, if important, would be traceable to higher-quality sources. SuperMarioMan 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I would agree; be very wary of using The Sun as a source for anything. pablo 23:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Documentaries

Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

There has been quite an evolution in the info in this case since the tabloids first started sensationalizing this case in 2007 and 2008. It is best to rely on the most current info.

For purposes of presenting readers with the most current info on this much evolved case, I have reorderd the documentaries to list the 2011 reports first, with the 2008 reports last. Much of what was reported in 2008 is now viewed as incorrect.

In general, this article needs to be greatly updated with more current sources. RockSound (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Did anyone see British reporter Nick Pisa on the Today show this morning? If is he is now reversing his opinion and saying the prosecution's "house of card's has crumbled", then his sensationalized tabloid "Foxy Knoxy" articles especially from the early days should perhaps not be relied on any further in this article. RockSound (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ordering the documentaries so that the most recent is listed first has little effect on how the article is read, if any - ultimately, it is quite a short list. Since the article does not describe the actual content of any of these programmes, "it is best to rely on the most current info" seems to me to be a rather weak rationale. And, quite separate from that, a chronological order based on the transmission dates would immediately seem to be a far more logical approach. SuperMarioMan 23:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for using the most recent info is obvious. The old material is far less likely to be accurate. Much of what was reported early on has been shown to be false. The case has greatly changed since 2008. RockSound (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SuperMario that the most logical order would be based on date of airing. However, I could see us going alphabetical (like the books) or reverse chronological too...it really shouldn't matter much.LedRush (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The list contains eight items, and gives only basic technical information for each - it is a list of documentaries, not a list of sources that support statements in the article text. I do not understand how it is so vital to ensure that the most recent is listed first on the off-chance that the reader will somehow be deceived into watching supposedly inaccurate material (when the article itself states nothing at all about the actual content of the programmes). We hardly need to order them based on our own original research points of view as to which ones are the more reliable. Furthermore, with the list being as short as it is, what sizeable difference to the reader's understanding does this particular form of ordering actually make? SuperMarioMan 00:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think I just said that the order isn't vital. I just don't see the big deal about reverse chronology or alphabetical (as the books are) either.LedRush (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, LedRush - in that last comment, I intended to address the points that RockSound originally made in response to me - hence the original single indent. I have restored it. Apologies for this misunderstanding. SuperMarioMan 01:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I've changed the order to alphabetical, which is one of LedRush's proposed alternatives. Just as we don't list the books in chronological order of release date, so it may be better just to avoid both forms of chronological listing for the documentaries. SuperMarioMan 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent!LedRush (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the Injustice in Perugia book from listing of books on the case

Latest comment: 13 years ago38 comments9 people in discussion

I see no legitimate reason to delete the Injustice in Perugia book from the book list, while trashy material, unknown material, and even unpublished material has been included in that list.

Where does it say that the mere inclusion of a book in a list must meet the standards for "reliable source" ?

1) I note that the John Follain proposed book has been included in the list for months while it was not in fact even published (I just removed it).

2) I note that there is an Italian language book included in the list which was shown to be so false and defamatory that Amanda Knox won a court case against the author.

3) I note that the Angel Face book was published just by a website that Nadeau belongs to, and that she herself disparaged the book saying she had just slapped it together from her notebook--and it reads like that.

4) I note that there are other books included that no one knows anything about--so why are they listed?

In conrast, the Fisher book is very well written and well researched. Given the state of the list, and the standards used for the inclusion of books in other articles, it is not legitimate to exclude such an impressive and well researched book. RockSound (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the archived discusssion I've linked to in my editsummary.TMCk (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the issue but not a clear resolution as far as I can tell. Please consider the other books in the list, as I noted above, to determine what the standards are that are really being used here. This Fisher book meets those standards and then some. RockSound (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
the Bruce Fisher book doesn't meet WP standards as already pointed out. If you have reservations about the other books you might want to make your case based on wp policies and guidelines for each of them.TMCk (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What are these standards for inclusion on a book list? RockSound (talk) 00:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
For starters you can find some information Here and here. TMCk (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That policy on self published books does not apply, since no one is relying on anything the authors of these books on the list are saying to construct the text of the Kercher article. The statements in these books have no bearing on whether or not the Kercher article is accurate, unless they are specifically cited for some factual or other item in the article. But most of these books are not relied on in the article for even a single sentence.

Also, this is not a biography of a living person, so the second policy does not apply. While of course there are concerns about defamation in a topic like this, in this instance the Fisher book actually undercuts some of the extreme defamation that Ms. Knox has been subjected to. It is ironic that a book that tends to clear her good name is being excluded under a policy intended to protect against defamation, while a book that has already been adjudged by an Italian Court to be defamatory is included on the list. Obviously there is a lack of a clear set of standards here.

Most importantly, the list is not a list of references. The list is obviously intended just to chronicle or list the books covering the subject matter, which is what a bibliography does. A bibliography is not concerned with evaluating the content but rather including all books that cover the subject matter without evaluation. Check the article on bibliographies on this website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography It is helpful for the readers to know about the mere fact that so many books have been written about this case. No one is saying that these books are reliable sources, nor does inclusion in a bibliography mean that. RockSound (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • TMCk's links look rather compelling to me. --John (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have removed the Waterbury book on the same grounds - from what I have read, it too is self-published. In response to RockSound, I would argue that the presence of the book list does call for some evaluation as to which titles are listed, depending on how they are published. This list is almost like a "Further reading" section for this article, and self-published books that have not been subject to external peer review would rarely be listed in such a section, regardless of the topic of the article. SuperMarioMan 01:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that one survived because it was mentioned in secondary sources.LedRush (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

These standards are far from clear. What should be done here should be impartial and make some sense under the general policies against defamation. But it is ludicrous to say that a self-published book could be defamatory against a living person and therefore exclude any link or reference to it, while listing a book that has already been declared defamatory by an Italian court. Amanda Knox is indeed being defamed, but it is not a self published book that is defaming her. It is some of the other books. This is all just plain ridiculous. RockSound (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And you expect us to discuss this with you while you edit war to restore these works for which the policy and consensus seems clearly be to exclude them? That is what seems ridiculous to me. --John (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There was never any consensus to exclude the books, and it seems that the policy discussion is ongoing. Perhaps you could break from your habit of trying to inflame tensions as much as possible, whether by snark or insult, and actually contribute to a constructive conversation. While we're at it, Rocksound, you could settle down a bit, too. None of these changes are super-important, and giving time to discuss them shouldn't harm anything.LedRush (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
And yet I see you agreeing here, back in March, that these books are not regarded as reliable sources. Why then would we want to include them? --John (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid of feeding the troll, but did you even read the link you put in here? Because we are not talking about using the books as reliable sources, I write: "Can someone point to any WP policy at all regarding why they couldn't be included in the "books about the murder" section? I think the only guideline would be that they aren't notable. Have any secondary sources referenced the books?". And then I link to a secondary source mentioning one of the books. Please, try and be intellectually honest in your posts, especially when it is so easy to catch you in a misrepresentation of the truth. When you distort the truth in this manner, it taints everything else you do.LedRush (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please dial down the assumptions of bad faith a bit there. Your post is an example of the sort of thing that creates a toxic and uncollegial environment here, and has the effect of reducing people's willingness to get involved in this area. It also reduces the likelihood that your own opinion will be taken seriously, when you respond to a simple question with a lot of guff about your interpretation of my supposed motives. Once again, why would we want to mention a book if it is not regarded as a reliable source? --John (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Please dial down the assumptions of bad faith a bit there. Your posts are examples of the sort of thing that creates a toxic and uncollegial environment here, and has the effect of reducing people's willingness to get involved in this area. It also reduces the likelihood that your own opinion will be taken seriously, when you respond to a simple statement with a lot of guff about your interpretation of my supposed motives. Once again, you should try reading people's posts before attacking them.LedRush (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How are the other books reliable sources? One of them has been adjudged false and defamatory by an Italian court because it held concocted fantasies about Knox's alleged sex life out as fact. Yet I see no one deleting the defamatory books, only the non-defamatory ones. This is surely against Wikipedia's interests, since this site's policies seem very focused on avoiding defamation.RockSound (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The standard for including an external link is about the same as for a reference. The point of the external link is that it includes material that the article doesn't currently cover. (If the article covered it, then there would be no need for an external link.) If the material were added to the article, it should have reliable references. Excluding a biased, self-published, book is a reasonable action. The person wishing to insert text needs to justify it. What compelling information would such a book offer? A claim that other poor quality links are already included is not a justification; there's a WP code word for that rationale, but it escapes me right now. Glrx (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • "What compelling information would such a book offer?" It would offer a balance to the defamation in the other books included in the list and the defamation in this very article. RockSound (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We had discussed the omission of the book "Injustice in Perugia" with the self-identified author User:BruceFisher, to allow him to continue discussing the article, and making edits, without a direct conflict of interest which would arise if his book were listed in the article. By contrast, the self-identified author User:CandaceDempsey has refrained from editing the article (and only edited the talk-page to refute some derogatory remarks which other editors wrote about her, on the talk-page), while her book Murder in Italy has remained on the list within the article. -Wikid77 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Such obvious double standards. I just checked and found that the Will Savive book is self-published as well. http://www.delgrandepublishing.webs.com/ Yet it has been on the list for a long while now. I guess his involvement in the very pro-guilt TJMK site, which is full of horrible defamation against Knox and her family, makes him "neutral" and "a reliable source"? http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/will_savive_on_amanda_knox_on_the_witness_stand_on_the_morning_of_june/ If the Savive book can rightly be on the list, so can the Fisher and Waterbury books. RockSound (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with RockSound. We need to decide whether a self-published book should be included; and then approach them equally. I've read (or at least scanned) most of the self-published books and I don't think they really add much - most aren't the best books in the world and all of them seem to have a partisan view. So I'd support just excluding self-published and vanity press books. --Errant (chat!) 07:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Any book that is defamatory should be removed. That is what is crucial. The book "Amanda and the Others" must be removed due to the court ruling that it is defamatory, as well as the Nadeau book that calls Knox "the student killer." That is defamatory unless and until it is established in a final judgment that Knox is a killer, which is unlikely, but if it happens it could be one or two years away. Even Nadeau doesn't seem to believe that Knox is a killer any more, as she thought when she wrote the book. So these books that paint Amanda and Raffaele as killers are clearly absolutely defamatory if the students are acquitted during the two appeals. Sure these are not self published books but they are wrong and defamatory. Since the whole Wikipedia policy on self published books is to reduce the risk of defamation, allowing these defamatory books to stay listed, while removing those self published books which respond to that kind of defamation with redeeming information is clearly ass-backwards. RockSound (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy on self-published books is to avoid fringe opinions or partisan views that are published without editorial oversight. --Errant (chat!) 08:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely correct. As to living persons, the policy is intended to protect against defamation. But here the policy is being used to delete self published books written to respond to the defamation in the books printed by publishers. Very ass backwards. RockSound (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Remove all self-published books per WP:SPS. --John (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems like you guys are referring to different policies. John, is it your contention that the policy regarding including a list of books is that each listed book must past the reliable source criteria? It is possible that that is so, but I was operating under that idea that we should be applying normal notability standards. That would mean that if the books are mentioned in secondary sources, they may be notable enough to include (along with other notability factors). The Fisher book seems not to be mentioned in standard secondary sources, though it has received many informal reviews on the websites from which it is sold. The Waterbury book is referenced in one secondary source, as I pointed out the last time this discussion came up. I haven't looked for any other books.LedRush (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is no actual strongly affirmed policy on what to include in "further reading"/bibliography sections (apart from the rather vague WP:FURTHER). It is largely editor discretion. TBH given the partisan nature of this topic, sticking to reliably published reference books seems sensible. But I'm not overly bothered, LedRush's argument r.e. secondary sources seems equally sensible. --Errant (chat!) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is Wikipedia:Further reading, which would preclude including the SPS's. But it does not appear to be policy yet. --Errant (chat!) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Savive book, there is an article at something called the Student Operated Press which discusses him and his book, but I can't read it because the site crashed my browser each time. The book is sparsely, though favorably, reviewed on Amazon.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazon reviews, being user-generated, do not count as third party sources. --John (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hence the reason no one claimed they did.LedRush (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if there is no actual policy on what to include in the bibliography section, then the policy should be to remove all defamatory material, and allow non-defamatory material if it has some merit to it, such as being well researched. It seems that the policy applied thus far has been to allow defamatory books but remove the non-defamatory ones. I think this issue needs to go to some sort of independent review board. RockSound (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that in the absense of a specific policy, generally notability guidelines would be applied. Of course, BLP considerations should be weighed as well. While I generally don't see a problem with including books in general (even if their contents would constitute a BLP violation if reprinted in this article), in the interest of clarity and finality, I would suggest not including the Savive and Fisher books, but including the Waterbury book as it is mentioned in at least one RS (meaning, the standard for this article would be either independent publication or reference in at least one RS). It is somewhat arbitrary, but somehow feels fair and "right" at the same time. LedRush (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, there is only one book which has been proven to contain defamation and it is included because Knox's defamation case is mentioned and the book is noted for this reason. You seem to be equating defamation = negative which is not true. Defamation must be proven. Nadeau's book has not been proven so.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah... reading into the details of the court case the book was not done for defamation but violation of privacy over the details published. So I don't see an issue with it per se. --Errant (chat!) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The book was proven to have printed a complete fabrication about the so-called Albanian (source) which means that it does contain defamation (proven). I believe the suit started out as a defamation case that the Italian courts reduced to the privacy case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Rocksound's recent edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I am coming up against 3rr based solely on reverting edits of his which I don't think add much value, or which actively make the language less encyclopedic. I guess I could just wait and revert all of his edits, but some aren't so bad. Rocksound, would you consider discussing some of your reasoning here before editing? This is a contentious article and changes aren't usually best made en masse.LedRush (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Boldly reverted - I'm not at 3RR. For the sake of a "restore point", so to speak, I used my last revision. Some of the changes may be beneficial, but this does not seem to me to compensate for the effect of moving sections about and changing their titles. RockSound, could you please elaborate on these proposed changes here, before they are implemented? SuperMarioMan 02:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am putting in the dates to make a long confusing article less confusing. Dates would surely help. It amazes me that even those edits get deleted. It is very frustrating to put all this time in and someone removes my work while I am in process. I can see why Mr. Wales had such disappointment in this article and the way things are proceeding on it. RockSound (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely you must understand that this is far from a stable article, and that for such contentious and unstable articles there must, in the interest of all, be discussion before sizeable changes are made? Your edits have caused a whole section to be moved and section titles to be altered - I'm sorry, but these are not the sorts of changes that are best carried out in quick succession, without discussion, on an article such as this. Please slow down. SuperMarioMan 02:27, 25 May 2011

(UTC)

Stop exaggerating. No sizable changes at all concerning the dates and titles. I have put dates in the titles. You have got to be kidding me that even that needs your approval. Please stop deleting all of my work. I have put a lot of time in and about 99.5% of my work gets deleted by you or others. I have been published professionally. I know what I am doing. I know how to clarify and enhance an article. I have edited the work of other people professionally. There is no reason for me to spend hours and hours seeking permission from you to put in dates! I moved one paragraph that was clearly out of place and made the article much harder to follow where it was. The article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up. But all I am doing right now is putting in a few dates. Dates would help a lot. I know of no rule that says an editor must seek permission to make such basic minor changes that do not alter the meaning or content at all. So is "your" rule that no editor can make even basic minor changes on here without your permission? Where does it say that in the rules? 02:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So now Tarc is calling me a liar on an edit summary? I can see why so many editors have been driven away from here. I edited much earlier a section on the Innocence Project. I had no idea that you even reverted that too! Why? So all of my work, no matter how minor, simple language clarifications on the Innocence Project get deleted too? What is really going on is that the information is being slanted and skewed just as Mr. Wales said. He said it himself. What is going on here is wrong. Mr. Wales told you that, yet you all just keep it up. So what needs to be discussed is just what Mr.Wales pointed out as the problems and how we need to deal with those problems. RockSound (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

They revert any changes as a kneejerk reaction, giving flimsy or no justification for doing so. They've been doing it for years and there's a few of them, so they get away with it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP Concerns in Bibliography Section

Latest comment: 13 years ago43 comments9 people in discussion

Rocksound has argued that books that are "defamatory" towards living persons should not be included in our bibliography, and made the corresponding edit here [10]. While I disagree with his interpretation [11], I can't say it is definitely "wrong". Is there a WP policy on including books in a bibliography even if their contents would constitute a BLP violation if reprinted in this article? It seems we need to resolve this issue. Also, as Rocksound has presented BLP concerns for his removal of tex, I haven't reverted his edit, though I would prefer keeping the text in until resolution is attained here.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Can a convicted murderer be defamed by books discussing the conviction, the convict's involvement in the crime, and so on? This seems like a pretty tenuous position to stake. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to discuss comment on actual positions people have taken?LedRush (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No policy I can think of off-hand. I don't really know how best to consider these... although it is worth pointing out that we regularly use information from RS's where we choose not to use some of the information (for example names) - so there is a parallel there. RockSound wrongly equates BLP to defamation, but the definition is wider than that - if defamation has occured in those books that is pause for thought. I don't agree with his argument that the title of the Nadeau is a problem, on the other hand, I have the book and it isn't very good. So support removal on the basis it isn't wonderful. Ultimately this is editorial discretion, so whatever we agree really --Errant (chat!) 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
RockSound started by wanting to include Fisher but has made an argument that sounds to me like other stuff exists and I don't like it then has moved towards being pointy with a notion of throwing out those things he doesn't like.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That is an excellent point of view regarding an individual editor. Do you have anything to discuss about this topic?LedRush (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This is on topic as you have founded it with what RockSound wants. I agree with what Tarc has phrased in a question, as well as what Errant has said that RockSound hasn't got the right understanding between BLP and defamation so that this topic isn't really a concern.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure why you and Tarc are missing the topic, so I'll try again. "Is there a WP policy on including books in a bibliography even if their contents would constitute a BLP violation if reprinted in this article?". If not, how should we approach this issue?LedRush (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Printed sources, even the ones we use for citations often have information included that we wouldn't include in our articles, but we still can link to them. Just think about names of victims that are freely available in the press or in books. So we use the source but we leave out (in our text) what would be a BLP-violation on WP.TMCk (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to make sense to me. I just thought that seeing as Rocksound was tinkering on the article based on BLP concerns, we should have a clear understanding of what can and can't be in the article with that topic in mind. Your view, and Errant's above, seem to jive perfectly with the one I also forwarded above.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
"...even if their contents would constitute a BLP violation if reprinted in this article" is not a statement to which I give much credibility. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Then don't reply. You constantly taking conversations off topic with sarcasm and deliberate mischaracterization of others' ideas is unhelpful.LedRush (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Then don't deceptively mischaracterize sources that are critical of your favored subject matter as a BLP violation. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have never "mischaracterized sources that are critical of [my] favored subject matter as a BLP violation." Your personal attack is a lie, and I would appreciate it you striking it.LedRush (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that is such a whinge. You said "is there a WP policy on including books in a bibliography even if their contents would constitute a BLP violation if reprinted in this article", yet never at any point say what the grievous "BLP violation" actually is...it isn't simply the "killer" term (which, if you need to be reminded, is true; Knock has been convicted y'know)...then what is it? Without evidence, it seems to be one large case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
So, I didn't say what the BLP violation is, and you've decided to insert your opinion of what I may think is a BLP violation in that space. And then you accuse that position you've just invented as a "deceptive mischaracterization" of the sources. Genius...LedRush (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If it is only in the case of Sarzanini's book that defamation has been proven, as Berean Hunter indicates in the section above, that would seem to be the only hypothetical BLP violation that we are dealing with here - would it not? Surely with anything else we would be venturing quite far into the realm of original evaluation and interpretation of the books. However, since the article makes reference to the defamation case, the omission of Sarzanini's publication from the bibliography would be something of an oversight. From what I can tell, only Dempsey's book is used to source text in the article, and that is still only for one sentence of text. SuperMarioMan 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Generally, the standard for a BLP concern would not be proven defamation. Therefore, each book could be a hypothetical BLP violation. However, I agree with TMCk and Errant's analysis above that the actual text included in the article would need to be a BLP violation, not merely the title of a book which contains info which would be a BLP violation. I don't see a need to remove any books from the bibliography based on BLP concerns.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the second half of that comment reflects the view that I hold. It is a standalone list of books, of which only one (Dempsey's) is also used as a source. The article does not comment on the reliability of the publications (besides the one case of proven defamation). BLP is a spurious argument for removal. SuperMarioMan 21:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
A requirement of WP:FURTHER is that the publication be recommended by the editor (which I would take to be a consensus of editors). Hence an evaluation and interpretation is implied. Other recommendations suggest that the publication be balanced (an aspect of a reliable source?). I would be leary of self-published works pushing a point of view; if those works were included, then they need something to recommend them -- such as notoriety for illegally publishing private information. If listed for notoriety, then I would expect a comment stating that (so it does not look like recommended reading). Glrx (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2011

(UTC)

These values make no sense at all to me. Why should a self published book that has included material illegally be included, but a self published book of good quality be excluded? My head is spinning. This is all being done haphazard with no set of guidelines or common goals. The bibliography should be set forth according to some coherent set of goals and guidelines.

Perhaps we need to agree on that first. Why don't we compile a list of what the goals are here and how we go about meeting those goals.

This is a list for everyone to add to as we brainstorm:

The bibliography should be aimed at meeting what goals?

  • 1) inform the readers about books available to them for further reading on the case
  • 2) make it easier for them to know what is out there about the case
  • 3) list the works that others have done showing the great level of interest in the case
  • 4) include books presenting all views, guilty, innocent and in between
  • 5) avoid listing books that are defamatory
  • 6) include a wide variety of books, including self published if of good quality and not trashy
  • 7) basically just let the reader know what is out there, without taking a position on any book, with a disclaimer stated at the top of the bibliography list. We don't HAVE to recommend any book, just put it all out there except for defamatory material.
  • 8) anyone else?
"Quality" is vague and subjective concept - what is "good quality" to some will be poor quality or "trashy" to others. Some will view certain books as "defamatory" more strongly than others. I take issue with the ideas behind points 5 and 6. Point 7 would seem to contradict itself: if we are to exclude material considered "defamatory", then it would seem that already we are adopting a position on the books. Yet, as with the documentaries, the article gives no information about the majority of these publications (with the exceptions of Dempsey being used once as a source, and Sarzanini's involvement being mentioned elsewhere) besides titles, authors and basic technical information: simply listing titles without commentary does not amount to Wikipedia endorsing perceived defamation that may or may not exist (BLP concerns, for example, seem to be thin on the ground). SuperMarioMan 00:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So you feel that there should not be an attempt to evaluate the books, just put them on the list even if defamatory, include a disclaimer, and let the readers decide for themsleves? Some of these books are clearly junk. RockSound (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'll get further if you don't accuse everyone that isn't you of being haphazard and having incoherent goals. I have set forth a very clear goal: notability.LedRush (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I confess that I myself have not read any of these publications. Neither have I watched any of the documentaries or seen the TV film. I have no personal opinions on these works, and most of what I do know is based on what I have read at this talk page. I'm now definitely coming around to the view that notability (from significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) would be the best measure for determining which books should be included and which should not. Also, I would argue that a disclaimer would be going too far - not particularly encyclopaedic. SuperMarioMan 01:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What goal does notability serve? How is that important? So the sensational defamatory books get included but well researched books of benefit to readers are not included because they have not broken the law and become sensational? Sounds bogus to me. I have read a lot of these books. Some are good, some are not worth spending a penny on. Junk. I think the list should be based on quality myself. But the last thing we should do is base it on notability, since that means the defamatory tabloid type sensational books go in while the non defamatory, thoughtful, scholarly books gets excluded. RockSound (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps refer this question to a policy noticeboard: The objections to endorsing (linking) to known defamatory books is a valid concern. Remember: already it is a violation of WP policy to link to a webpage of song lyrics which omits the song copyright, or to link to some porn websites. Hence, perhaps a policy board should rule on linking a book which states "killer" about a person currently being re-tried for that crime (until the re-trial and 2nd appeal has been concluded). I personally, might have thought, "Everyone knows to assume recent songs are copyrighted"; however, my assumption is not enough, and we need a policy decision about this. Obviously, linking to a book is a Wikipedia endorsement, so I recommend, "Do not link unless cleared by a policy noticeboard". -Wikid77 08:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in asking for outside help. There is the external links noticeboard but I am not sure this is their speciality. Indeed, this area of policy seems largely undeveloped and left to editor discretion... perhaps an RFC? At least to agree on some criteria for inclusion. btw I am not aware of any policy precluding links to pornography websites, so long as they pass our WP:EL criteria --Errant (chat!) 08:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think the allegations that there are defamation and BLP violations within the article (ie, apparently, reporting the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty at their first trials) could perhaps benefit input from the BLP noticeboard, also. pablo 10:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Pablo, it is sarcastic and deliberately unhelpful comments like that which create a sense that this place is so hostile that new editors need to engage in scorched earth editing.LedRush (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody "needs to engage in scorched earth editing".
You may see that as sarcastic, you may see it as deliberately unhelpful, but it wasn't intended to be either of those things.
One of the things that editors have repeatedly brought up here is preceisely this issue. Because the article correctly reports the fact that Knox and Sollecito were tried, found guilty and sentenced, this is seen as evidence of 'bias' in the article. This has been brought up over and over and over again in the year or so I have been reading this article and its talk page. I was already thinking of asking on the BLP noticeboard for some experienced and hitherto uninvolved editors to take a look; and will probably do so tonight.
Thank you, once again, for your bad-faith digs at me; they you no credit as most of your contributions here are reasonably useful. pablo 15:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)copyedited to include the word "deliberately" pablo 15:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Can you please show me where anyone has stated that "reporting the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty at their first trials" is a BLP?LedRush (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Not right now; I would need to do some digging in the archives, which is why I have not thus far, posted to WP:BLP/N. pablo 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's part of the problem. No one is bringing up that point here. By you assigning that position to people who haven't stated it here, you are making any constructive conversation much more difficult.LedRush (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I see what you're getting at now.
But I was agreeing with Wikid's "Perhaps refer this question to a policy noticeboard:" and suggesting another policy noticeboard might be useful too. If that makes things awkward, I apologise for the inconvenience. pablo 15:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It's still in my memory and here is a recent thread discussing the conviction as being "bias in the article": Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 32#Undoing bias in the article. TMCk (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
A: that is different than what was alleged above. B: by assigning that old opinion to a different discussion where the opinion has not been brought up, people are mischaracterizing editors' current views. When the mischaracterization is sarcastic and/or bitey, it further creates a hostile board. That's why people should address the actual points people argue while not assigning old or never-expressed views to them.LedRush (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
You're now talking about your own comment(s) in response to Pablo I guess? Beware of the glass house :) TMCk (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
No, my comment could not possibly be interpreted that way. Pablo's comment assigned an opinion to an editor that the editor didn't have, and did so in a bitey way. My comment to Pablo was a straightforward plea not to do this. However, your sarcastic mischaracterization of my view is noted.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Quit nagging about editors and stay on subject and you won't get a response you don't like. It's that simple.TMCk (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
[EC]If people don't stop sarcastic replies, mischaracterization of ideas, and generally hostile or unhelpful one-liners aimed at belittling other (often new) editors' ideas, the tone of the talk-page will never improve. As long as you and others engage in those activities, I will "nag" them to stay on subject and discuss the actual ideas presented.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
With other words, you keep running what you try to prevent.TMCk (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
All evidence to the contrary.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think only Wikid has brought up that word.LedRush (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Making the Improvements That Mr. Wales Suggested

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I think that we need to discuss the issues, problems and concerns that Mr. Wales brought up on discussion pages several weeks ago. Those problems are still going on from what I can see. He spent his valuable time trying to straighten things out, yet no one appears to be listening to him. He referred to a petition or open letter that he receieved and tried to address the concerns. So perhaps we need to start from that point, reviewing the concerns that were addressed to Mr. Wales. I will retrieve that information for discussion purposes here. RockSound (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I am someone who agreed whole heartedly with Jimbo's sentiments on this article, but you need to slow down and get consensus before making large-scale changes. I don't know that soul-searching in general is helpful. Discussing specifics is generally more helpful. What specific issues do you have with the article?LedRush (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Not only did they not listen to him, but a number of the people editing this article were quite rude to him. They simply have no respect for anyone. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I will try to summarize the hours Jimbo Wales burned to help this article (and reveal some WP policy weaknesses). He began by posting a notice of "Open Letter" here (see topic of 22 March 2011: /Archive_28#Open_Letter), stating:
"This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction." -Jimbo Wales (in archive)
Thus began an attempt to allow more sourced text into the article, on either side. The first major issue was a rejected list of sourced facts by former User:PhanuelB (which Jimbo found credibly sourced), then Jimbo found a user totally blocked for 1 valid edit (and Jimbo noted it was clearly a wrong block), and then he continued to ask people to not be hostile. Blocking admin User:Black_Kite had already resigned (Jan. 2011) for family, User:MLauba backed away, and User:Bluewave (who had rewritten the article as half-sized) quit soon. User:FormerIP, who had edited the article 600? times to delete phrases, went berserk and self-identified to some external-blog insult of Jimbo as mismanaging the talk-page efforts. Then FormerIP prompted insults on this talk-page against one "Candace Dempsey" (the award-winning author & journalist) who then joined WP in frustration to refute the derogatory remarks on this talk-page. Meanwhile, Jimbo burned more hours reading 3 or 4 books, asking others to do the same (perhaps in hopes that people reading information would allow text into the article). However, attempts to add information were met with total reverts (I mean erasing EVERY word of hundreds of words added), in several additions attempted by several users. The talk-page was loaded with bickering, and newcomers were demoralized and backed away. However, the real world was watching the talk-page, and a class of 14-year-old students reportedly remarked that they had mistakenly thought Wikipedia was written by adults?!?. Even young teenagers could see through the crap. More people, frustrated by opposition, quit. However, others kept going, playing the ropes, and thwarted people trying to add sourced text, thwarting the whole basis for the "Open Letter" on 22 March 2011. There is a policy of WP:DISRUPTION which warns people not to disrupt edits which are intended to improve an article, but there were so many obsessive people refusing to allow text, that some have called them a "tag team" which takes turns alienating new editors. Hence, the Wikipedia policies need to be strengthened to stop such disruptive groups, and allow details in a crime article. The good news is that normal 14-year-olds knew what they saw happening was wrong. So, the real world is watching what those people are doing, and the article still needs to regain some balanced viewpoints. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Plenty of content has been added, from reliable sources. --Errant (chat!) 07:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The violations of the spirit of Wikipedia and specific polices continue in this article. There could not be a clearer case of a violation of WP:OWN CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Attempted ownership by you, yes. I will once again note that the "problems" Mr. Wales noted with he article is not a position shared by all. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The fact of my very limited number of edits to this article proves you a liar. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is not Mother-May-I

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion
No specific proposal has been made regarding the article itself. Too much bad faith, not enough useful discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let's be clear, here: anyone can add text to the article, without paying a fee, to the trolls at the bridge, to let text cross into the article. I get the feeling, lately, we are supposed to ask permission from domineering mothers who want to pre-screen every word, with a request, "Mother may I please add this word to the text". I really do not think this begging permission will work with most adults: it doesn't work with me. Editors who want to nurture their mothering instincts should perhaps try adopt-a-pet or go volunteer to help children at a school, but please understand that adult editors are unlikely to work well in a mother-may-I mode. While we're on the subject, when some editors sense a loss of power in mothering every word, then they go to WP:ANI to see if they can interest a "daddy" in helping them tend "their children" on the article. The whole situation seems really strange, and one guy, taken to ANI last month, thought it seemed rather creepy, and now I am beginning understand that feeling. Many editors here are adults. Let people simply add the text they want, and then others can discuss if, or how, it should be modified. -Wikid77 05:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on content not editors. Also; the correct process is WP:BRD, if someone makes a substantive change another edit will revert it and ask for a discussion. Changes to the headers definitely needs discussion (there is merit there, but I don't think we need a date in every header :) It is being discussed above) --Errant (chat!) 06:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, Wikid. There is an entrenched group here on this article who act as nannies, treating other adults as though they need their permission before making any changes. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, CodyJoeBibby, for that word "nannies" as describing the behaviour. WP allows commenting on editor's "behaviour" rather than targeting individuals as a personal attack, when several people are hindering the same article. The process that I am noting is WP:DISRUPTION, which warns of situations where:
  • an "editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors".
Does that sound familiar? Several editors are all noting the same badgering, of having sourced text removed quickly. So that is why I noted how Wikipedia policies do not condone the repeated pattern of continual revert-edits which is "alienating or driving away potential editors". When I try to put the words "stabbed" or "strangulation" into the intro text, then those words get deleted as "WP:UNDUE details" so the lede section gives no cause of death, no indication of motive, and no phrases which identify controversies such as "questionable Low Copy Number DNA" or "crime scene contamination" or "pre-trial publicity" or "not having a sequestered jury" etc. Hence, the article intro violates the rules in WP:LEDE, and any major attempts to improve the article intro are met with continual WP:DISRUPTION. This is just a formal notice about the problem, in this article. -Wikid77 09:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If anyone adds anything substantial, it's usually wholesale deleted within minutes, with a dismissive citation of some irrelevant policy. The person deleting the material is often someone who does not even engage in the article's discussion page. There is no attempt to engage in constructive discussion, just keep new material out of the article at all costs. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That's just fucking disrespectful to the people who are working hard on this article (LedRush, Truth Mom, Super Mario Man, Pablo & FormerIP, etc). Look at the Perugia Shock stuff - that was raised, discussed, agreed and properly added. There are people, certainly, making irrelevant comments on this page that is largely unrelated to proposed content or article changes. But it is not that list of editors. --Errant (chat!) 09:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
And what about the Idaho innocence section? That is substantial content that has been added and kept with minimal fuss. (sure, it was copyedited, to improve the content... but are you really complaining about that) --Errant (chat!) 09:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe its time to return to full protection. pablo 10:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Preferably for a long time indeed. Or, at least, until after the appeals are concluded. The last 24 hours have shown precisely why discussion at this topic is so important. Of course, the proper procedure is BRD, nor BDR, and I reject Wikid's inaccurate analysis of the problems here. In this particular case, RockSound's edits simply involved changing too much, too quickly, all without prior discussion. SuperMarioMan 11:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I disagree; apart from occasional disruption and disagreements the content is largely being improved and expanded. I'm kinda loath to impede that. When the disruption dies down we usually go through a fairly productive period. I suppose if we could figure a way to agree on new/changed content and get it implemented protection may work. --Errant (chat!) 11:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That too is an important point. To state "a long time" is probably an exaggeration on my part, but at times like this a brief return to full protection seems more and more desirable at least in so far as it obliges editors to discuss more frequently and in greater depth. When small changes are proposed calmly and slowly, there is potential for some really productive conversations here. I too take the subsection on the Idaho Innocence Project as a testament to the fact that expansion is certainly possible - but too much, too quickly (or altering the article structure) and the editing atmosphere soon becomes hostile and unproductive. Pace is important. SuperMarioMan 11:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The administrator on the ANI board determined that locking the article is not appropriate at this time. RockSound (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done, Rocksound. You survived your baptism of fire on this article. I myself was also dragged to AN/I in a frivolous and vexatious attempt to get me into trouble by the same person who took you there. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
An administrator felt there was no need to full-protect the article yet. It's not like there's only one admin on that board. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Is that a threat? It certainly sounds like one. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it difficult to construe HandThatFeeds' logical statement of fact as much of a "threat" at all. SuperMarioMan 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I suppose you wouldn't. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
How in the world do you see that as a threat? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

AP News

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks, I have been away for while...This is significant news and I think that it should be included in the article: APNewsBreak: Lawmakers say Knox treated unfairly in campaign supporting US murder convict

Turningpointe (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No comment on the merit of the article at this time, but I removed the full text of the article but preserved the URL. We can't reprint AP articles in full. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

When they first met Kercher

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Months ago, there was discussion of noting when each of the 3 suspects first met Kercher. So, here is some proposed text:

  • Add under "Rudy Guede":  Guede first met Kercher (with Knox) in mid-October at the disco Red Zone, introduced by Kercher's student boyfriend Giacomo S. who played basketball with Guede (during the year) and lived downstairs in the cottage (with 3 other Italian students). The group returned to the downstairs flat, but the girls went upstairs, and Guede fell asleep on the toilet.[Micheli Judgment]
  • Add under "Amanda Knox":  Knox first met Kercher on 20 September 2007, after Knox returned from visiting relatives in Germany.[Dempsey] They both attended a short Italian class at the University for Foreigners (Stranieri), to improve their language skills.[Dempsey] They also went to clubs together, and Kercher accompanied Knox when she was hired at the pub Le Chic, to work 2 nights a week. They attended the Perugia chocolate festival together, and both went to the classical music concert on 27 October 2007, where Kercher left at intermission, when Sollecito then met Knox.
  • Add under "Raffaele Sollecito":  Sollecito first met Kercher, after 27 October 2007, in the company of Knox, who had started staying overnight at his house.

There should probably be more with Sollecito, from various reports about them together, but the above text is a start. I will add that text to the article in the next few days, unless there are any suggested changes. -Wikid77 17:05, revised 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. RockSound (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why? --John (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
All of that amounts to trivia, it adds nothing to an article on the murder. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In general, the article omits so much about Kercher with other people, it treats Kercher as if she never lived, and so more needs to be added. Also, I think along with mentioning that Kercher attended the University for Foreigners (for Italian classes), note the memorial scholarship which that university announced ("Kercher scholarship announced | Perugia", ITALY Magazine, 3 November 2010, link: IMag-schol). This article should be treated also as a small bio-page for Kercher, so mention the college scholarship in her honor. Also, expand for other details, in the same general spirit of expanding information, rather than as Kercher the crime statistic. -Wikid77 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
    It omits such info because it really isn't relevant. This isn't a biographical article on any of the primary players; it certainly should not be treated as such just because articles on the individuals fail our notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    This article should not "be treated also as a small bio-page for Kercher". If she was notable for a biography you would have a point. Clearly she is not, hence the title of this page, which is about her murder. --John (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    I would be inclined to agree with the assessments of John and Tarc. After all, the title of the article is not simply "Meredith Kercher" - it includes the prefix "Murder of". I am not sure that the proposed content would add much more to the article than a listing of all the rooms in the flat and details of their contents - information that has itself recently been removed. SuperMarioMan 00:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, by me. Hope that was ok. It seems that we should focus on keeping NPOV in the article, which might mean trimming as much as gets added. Details about who she met and when, and about the minute details of the layout of the flat, don't seem to belong here. --John (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    Oh, no, don't worry, that wasn't a criticism. I too have been copyediting the article recently, and I came to a rather similar conclusion about the text in question - lots of description, but how much it added was debatable. SuperMarioMan 01:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Layout

Well this edit summary claims that the flat layout details are helpful for sight-impaired readers, which is certainly something to consider. pablo 07:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. Assistance for the blind in regards to images can be accomplished via alt tags. Tarc (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a stretch, sure. pablo 12:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that does come across as quite a weak rationale. Regardless of whether or not the presence of the text helps the visually-impaired, some of it seems rather trivial. I can appreciate that listing the rooms is reasonable enough, but listing what was in each one seems excessive. How are the stone steps leading to the cottage important? How is the nearby car park important? How is the fact that both bathrooms contained a sink, a toilet and a bidet important? How is the fact that one bathroom contained a bath and the other a shower important? Don't most bathrooms have sinks and toilets, baths and/or showers (I don't know about bidets)? The same applies to the description of the laundry room - a sink and a washing machine wouldn't be unusual finds in a room where laundry is cleaned. I can't see where else in the article the stone steps, car park, sinks, toilets, bidets, bath, shower and washing machine have any particular relevance, nor how the removal of this information would limit the ability of a visually-impaired reader to understand this article. SuperMarioMan 13:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I undid it. There seems to be a healthy consensus that this level of detail is unhelpful and distracting. --John (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm generally in agreement - I don't really see what purpose it serves, is it crucial to know the layout? I don't know of any other murder articles where we describe the murder scene in intricate detail. --Errant (chat!) 20:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Music Video

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I agree with cody, what relevance does appearing in a musi video have? I am sure she did lots of stuff prior to her death, none of it has been identified as relating to her murder. --Errant (chat!) 20:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not everyday that one appears in a music video, so the detail is perhaps notable enough as a simple aside. However, as with the detailed text about the contents of the flat, its removal would have little negative effect on the rest of the article. SuperMarioMan 20:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I too agree. No relevance to the case and no major relevance to Kercher as a person. Simply no need for to understand the subject.TMCk (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
(Add):The bio sections are only there to give a brief summary of the most important details of each defendant and the victim for better understanding of the article's subject and not to be filled with trivia from their lives.TMCk (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Subsection re-naming?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Having gone through the article and copyedited some sections, I believe that the "Senator Maria Cantwell" subsection in the "Support for Knox and Sollecito" section could, perhaps, be re-titled. Given that this part of the article documents the involvement of others besides Cantwell, such as Hilary Clinton, would a more general title such as "American politicians" (or something to that effect) be more logical? That would match the subsection titled "Italian politicians" below it. Just an idea that occurred to me. SuperMarioMan 00:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, well while Clinton is mentioned, she doesn't appear to have been particularly interested. It seems to have been a bit of a one-off from Cantwell. pablo 00:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course, it's really only a minor proposal. And certainly the whole episode does appear to be something of a "one-off". SuperMarioMan 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be the other way around, renaming the "Italian politicians" section to "Petition to Italian Justice Minister" for example. Any thoughts on this?TMCk (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, TMCk. Yes, I'd support that. It would be more precise. If I remember correctly, the original title was "Recent Italian Political Support" - but that seemed to come up against WP:RECENTISM, so I simplified it to "Italian politicians". SuperMarioMan 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, since Pablo doesn't seem comfortable to change the other title and you are in agreement with mine for the "Italians" part I'll boldly change it.TMCk (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Form a queue for the crayons, and no pushing-in

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was me thinking that (despite various disagreements hither and yon) the dialogue here was generally productive. Apparently not. Seems this article should be left to the clever kids. pablo 19:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The real clever kids know they're clever; The not so clever ones only think they're clever ;) TMCk (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Just ignore it. The point (as with previous postings) seems to be to get a rise out of people. So. Ignore. --Errant (chat!) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Someone needs to point them to the internet meme that is "white knighting". Tarc (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
How to make friends and influence people, eh? --John (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you're (unusually) wrong, ErrantX; it's the latest in a long history of indirect slaggings on the pages of editors whom he sees to be sympathetic to his own view of what this article should be. However I should not perhaps have posted this here, it's a matter for a RFC/U if anything. pablo 23:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taking down the NPOV tag

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

What do folks think about removing this? I don't think it is really merited any more and I haven't seen any recent discussions about issues related to this, but I thought I would ask here rather than removing it unilaterally. What do folks think about taking it down? If not, why not? --John (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well the idea is that if you add the tag you have to raise a specific neutrality issue; and once the issue is resolved in some way the tag must go. That way it can't be used as a "badge of shame". So, yeh, sensible to remove. --Errant (chat!) 19:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd say it's good to go, now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
There are still numerous errors and omissions in the article. I have just noticed that the article is claiming that 'The house was closed as a crime scene from 2 November 2007 until April 2009'. Technically true, perhaps, but omitting the undocumented entries by police and the burglaries of the cottage during that period. On the other hand, the article now seems to be claiming that the death of the victim occurred before 11 pm, giving Knox and Sollecito a cast iron alibi. I suppose that since these errors are not really favouring one particular side, I don't see any reason to oppose removing the NPOV tag. I'll support its removal, as long as the article becomes more accurate. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Uh, if it was closed as a crime scene surely police would be entering it during that time? Unless the Italian definition of a crime scene is radically different :P Burglaries - source? The time issue... we need to work on that then. I haven't got far enough through some of the books (Dempsey's book is like trying to read through a visor of mud, horrid) to comment fully, though my hope is that I get un-bored enough one week to finish them all. However; innacuracies are generally not an NPOV issue, and if nothing specific can be raised the tag should go. Sources to correct the other issues would be good. --Errant (chat!) 21:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
They are supposed to document entries to the crime scene. Hence my use of the word 'undocumented'. I can see how a big long word like that would be easy to miss. I'm glad this article is owned by someone like yourself with such a good eye for detail. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
But we can't use stuff that's undocumented. Not without a document stating that it's undocumented. Sources are required; assertions are not sufficient. pablo 22:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue the point. Photographic evidence proves that the crime scene was entered and disrupted by police more than once without being documented. But I understand the need of people to maintain the MoMK article in its current state, no matter what. Fine with me. Enjoy the smell of the dustbin of history. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Cody, I am not au-fait with Italian procedures for such things - in the UK, certainly, you do not have to document every visit to a closed crime scene (at least, not in the way you are considering). This is an interesting question I suppose; what are the Italian rules on such things, were they broken, and does a RS document this fact? Again; sources for all of this would be good. :) --Errant (chat!) 22:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well to some extent you do have to argue the point, otherwise you're just some dude saying some stuff! The stuff that you're saying is interesting and possibly relevant but we cannot report it if it is not verifiable pablo 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm ambivalent because all POV tags usually do is establish someone's POV right up there smack on top of the article. CodyJoe's comment that there are still omissions in the article is accurate. For instance, The Times is given as a source -- this article here. One part of that source says the following:
"She has changed her story several times, first saying that she spent the evening and night with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, then admitting she was at the cottage but only heard Ms Kercher's screaming from her bedroom while Mr Lumumba was in it, then reverting to her original account and claiming that she was not at the cottage at all until the next morning."
But our article says the following: (edited)
Knox was questioned first by the police alone and, later that night, in the presence of a prosecutor. During these interviews, she said that she had gone to the flat with Lumumba......had been in the kitchen when she heard Meredith screaming in her room after she had entered it with Patrick...... later (6 November) she ....... partially retracted her earlier statements.
Our article does not say what the source says, that Knox claimed she was not there at Kercher's cottage, changed her story to was there, and changed later to not there. If our article is intended to say what the source says, it fails. Maybe someone doesn't think the source is a good one, but it is good enough to be used six times elsewhere in the article.Moriori (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Never once in her 'confession' did Knox state that she had entered Meredith's room with Patrick. This is a lie which should not be in the article. I'll correct it immediately. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The source says “Patrick and Meredith went off together into Meredith’s room ...". The confusion here is over who is the 'she' referred to in the sentence in question which I read as:
SheKnox said that sheKnox had been in the kitchen when sheKnox heard Meredith screaming in herKercher's room after sheKercher had entered it with Patrick
 pablo 07:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Time to remove the tag. What is laid out here are only minor mistakes in the article or unsourced speculation which the NPOV-tag isn't made for.TMCk (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What are the "minor mistakes" or "unsourced speculation you mention? Moriori (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Everything Cody has pointed out.TMCk (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed the tag; if there are ongoing minor issues with the article they can be discussed here, but the consensus seemed to be that there was no need for the NPOV tag. --John (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mounting challenge to the neutrality of this article

Latest comment: 13 years ago39 comments14 people in discussion

I have inserted the banner at the top of the page because I strongly believe this article is not neutral. This article does not reflect what current reliable sources are saying about this case. There has been a great deal of coverage lately about the weakness of the prosecution's case. Many sources are now saying that there is no case left, the prosecutor was way off base, there should be a probe of the prosecutor, ect., ect. This article reads like the old tabloid news coverage of this case. It needs to be cleaned up a lot, with new developments added in. I just saw on CNN tonight, for example, a detailed documentary linking the prosecutor's mishandling of the Monster of Florence case and his handling of this case, and basically painting the prosecutor as having bungled this case resulting in a wrongful conviction. That is pretty darn near radical stuff in comparison to the early media coverage of this case. So the coverage by reliable sources has evolved, and this article needs to evolve as well. At the rate this article is going, it will be the only media source left taking a solid guilty view, with no room for, or consideration of, the serious defects in the prosecution's case now being so widely reported in the media. RockSound (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does it do that? I mean "taking a solid guilty view"? --John (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should add a lot about Mignini. He has been roundly criticized in RSs for a long time now. But where would such commentary go? I don't generally like criticism sections, but this may be a case where it is hard to integrate the all of the information and reports into the main body of the article. We could link it to criticism of other Italian authorities as cited in RSs (the police for not recording interviews or for bad crime scene maintenance (the latter is widely reported in RSs, not sure about the former) or the lead forensics expert who has delayed the trial by not providing the court appointed experts with the data they wanted. However, such insertions into the article cannot become a dumping ground for every minor criticism or general attacks on the prosecution case. It should be limited to specific criticisms reported in RSs.LedRush (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone needs a reminder, the prevailing, mainstream point of view is that she is guilty. Knox, Guede, and Sollecito were found guilty of raping and murdering Kercher, and at present sit in Italian jail cells. Allegations of wrongdoing and conspiracies have to be mindful of undue weight and fringe theory guidelines. There's been a 50-year hoo-ha over JFK's assassination as well, with lots of reliable sources talking about a lot of possibilities and supposed evidences. But at the end of the day, we're still at one guy, one gun, one window of a book depository. Tarc (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, I'm afraid that your view of what the "prevailing, mainstream point of view" is may be colored by your own perspective. The sources do not support such a sweeping claim, as there appears to be significant doubt, in reliable sources, about the guilt of Knox and Sollecito. I agree with you on Guede - I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt. But for the other two, it's just factually false to say that there is a single prevailing mainstream point of view. It is really important that our article appropriately reflect that legitimate doubt, rather than treat it as a crackpot conspiracy theory on the order of JFK assassination theories.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, all you need to do is show us some evidence that the prevailing, mainstream point of view is that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. You haven't, and thus your complaint here is completely unsubstantiated. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC))
Eek, I like to call that the "vocal fallacy". Support for Knox (and by association Sollecito) has been great, some of it appears to be legitimate, some seems to be the usual group of conspiracy theorists and some are friends/family who, obviously, will believe in innocence. But I think it is a very great stretch to say that the mainstream view is that they are innocent - most of the mainstream press report they have been convicted and note that there is vocal opposition and doubts expressed over the evidence. That is probably the view to reflect; it is not perfect, but much of the book material published at this stage isn't very good (Dempsey's book, which seems to be upheld as an example of material on the case, is pretty dire, to be polite - and don't get me started on the trashy "pro-guilt" books). I think that you are, unfortunately, suffering from the same problem your point out to Tarc; coloured by a perspective on the case. At this stage she has been convicted, and a new trial is progressing, doubts have been expressed over the evidence and the pair have had a lot of support
It worries me to see statements like I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt; I can see several holes in the evidence against him (as I see plenty of holes in his own version of events). A court has decided he is dead on guilty, but if he had had the vocal level of support as Knox has had I am sure it could have been dragged out just as long :) Hence the vocal fallacy; "he must be guilty because no one is fighting for him"
All of this is irrelevant though - as soon as we start viewing the article from the perspective of who is guilty, and whose guilt could be questioned we have lost. As I said above the prevailing overview is a) these three were convicted b) K & S are undergoing an appeal trial c) K & S have had vocal support from many quarters d) serious concerns have been raised over the evidence and handling of the case. And that is about all we can deal with :)
To RockSound; I have a lot of concern with dragging in all of Mignini's past infractions, definitely with media sources. I think we can deal with it in a few sentences without having to lay out all of the details - largely it is irrelevant. The point to record is that people have questioned him as a prosecutor and noted that he has had problems in the past; the actual problems are largely irrelevant to this story and dragging them in is just an attempt to use Wikipedia to spin the story in a certain way.
it will be the only media source left; ouch, you fatally understand the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an historical record, not a media source.
I actually read the article as being pretty strong in attempting to undermine the convictions. So perhaps it is actually somewhere in the neutral middle ground. ;) As I detailed above - any record of the events at this stage is going to generally come across as "guilty" - that is the problem with writing events as they come. There is no real rush, and so long as there are not BLP or other major issues with the text there is no harm in taking time over building the material. We do not, and really should not, reflect every cutting edge development as it happens. The bottom line is that whatever we do now... in a few years someone will have access to a decent collection of quality secondary retrospective sources and will be able to build a proper article. We are just throwing something together in the mean time, it is unlikely that what we produce will be problem free.
Regardless; the NPOV tag is intended for specific issues, raised and discussed. You are incorrectly using it as a badge of shame, please remove it. --Errant (chat!) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
On an off-topic note, I am unaware of any conspiracy theories around this trial. Most of the accusations regard incompetence and stubborness, not a group of individuals conspiring to lock-up innocent people. When editors here continually trivialize others' opinions by likening them to conspiracy theories, it is quite difficult to have civil conversation with them.
I, unsurprisingly, strongly disagree with Errant's assessment of the vocal fallacy. Current RSs and documentaries on the issue seems to have a strong "pro-innocent" (or more accurately, "pro-enough-doubt-for-a-not-guilty-verdict") bent to them. However, until mass polling is done, I suppose we won't get a definitive answer. In the end, it doesn't really matter. We merely stand to record what the RSs state. They state that the all three have been convicted, but that there is much controversy around Knox and Sollecito. Much of that controversy is around the conduct of the prosecutor's office and the police. This needs to be explicitly and more fully addressed.LedRush (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to be expressly clear on this; the article isn't particularly good as it stands. Some parts work hard to push the pro-innocence view, some are staunchly pro-guilt. Most of it is fine, but wholly disjointed and disconnected. But there is simply no way anyone could decisively rework the content at this stage - someone would crush down on it. So I think the best way forward is what we have been doing - picking up threads of new content a few at a time, hashing it out on the talk page and threading it into the article. Eventually a way to join it all up will emerge. --Errant (chat!) 14:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the tag is definitely warranted, but I am not sure that it is useful. Given the choice, I would keep it. However, because it isn't that useful, I won't put up much of a fight to keep it.LedRush (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since my last contribution to this page has mysteriously disappeared, may I humbly beseech the great controllers in the sky to heed my plea and restore the NPOV in dispute tag to this entry? Under Italian law you are not guilty until the process has been completed, which only Guede has done. The other two remain innocent and under trial. Please can this be made clear. I have other points but this will do for starters. The neutrality of this entry is definitely in dispute. I make this request in good faith so please leave it here so that others can see it and do not delete it. I am not Wiki literate so please have the courtesy to reply to me if you wish to and do not censor my contribution. I did not think we were living in George Orwell's 1984 world yet. NigelPScott (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs)

Nigel - if it stated in the accused that the accused are guilty of the murder, then that would be a point of view and thus justify the tag. If it stated in the article that two of the accused are not guilty of the murder (whether because they are undergoing a appeal or because some vocal public opinion says otherwise) , then similarly, that would justify a NPOV tag. The fact is that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty by the court, however, and reporting that fact is not a point of view. It really happened. pablo 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan deleted this post above by NigelPScott, but I have restored it. All viewpoints, including minority viewpoints, should be allowed into this Talk page.

To Mr. Jimbo Wales: The aggressive censorship going on with this article, the constant removal of legitimate information, the slanting of the content, and the blocking, banning and harassing of those editors who want this article to be something more than a Brief supporting the Prosecutor, is a disgrace to Wikipedia. What is going on with this article brings discredit and skepticism to the greatest website on the planet. It is all a travesty, both for Wikipedia and for Knox and Sollecito. RockSound (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In response to RockSound, I would argue that is quite possible to state the case for the NPOV tag without resorting to name-calling such as "controllers in the sky" (or worse), and suggesting that some users at this talk page have read too much Orwell. In future, please reflect carefully before restoring inflammatory remarks that do little to make the atmosphere at the talk page less "aggressive". SuperMarioMan 18:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I need to respond to Errant on one point, because it is important, and to do so I need to quote quite a bit or respond inline in the middle of his post. Either seems a bit awkward, so please forgive me for this long quote: "It worries me to see statements like I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt; I can see several holes in the evidence against him (as I see plenty of holes in his own version of events). A court has decided he is dead on guilty, but if he had had the vocal level of support as Knox has had I am sure it could have been dragged out just as long :) Hence the vocal fallacy; 'he must be guilty because no one is fighting for him'".
My response: whoa! I'm not saying that Guede is guilty. I'm not saying anyone is guilty. I'm not saying anyone is innocent either. That's not what Wikipedians should ever be doing. What I'm saying is that there are reliable sources - lots of them - which raise serious doubts about the conviction, and that therefore it is just wrong to say that the "mainstream view" is that she is guilty.
There is no justification for us to act as a court of law. We are not a court of law. If you've read various things and come to the conclusion that she's guilty (or innocent), you have to be very careful not to let your personal view color your work here. We are here to merely report fairly on what reliable sources are saying.
My point is this: reliable sources are raising serious doubts about her guilt. We have to report on that. Even if some people think she's guilty. Tarc suggested - in a factually mistaken manner - that objections here are like those of JFK conspiracy theorists. That's obviously false, when those objections are based on serious requests that reliable sources be taken seriously.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you see a need for the NPOV tag given the current state of the article? Do you think having such a tag will help us improve the article? --John (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Speaking for myself (and I suspect most people in the entire universe, I neither know nor care about the actual guilt or otherwise of the two appellants. I do agree that the questions that have been raised about the investigation and trial need summarising in this article. I am concerned, however, that the many, many attempts to use these doubts to retry the case on this page will grow in force, especially as at least one editor has concluded that they have the founder's blessing to play Sherlock Holmes here. pablo 18:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Jimbo; yes, but the problem is that because Knox has such vocal support that becomes prominent - hence the vocal fallacy. As many problems may exist with Geude's conviction, but no one is bothering to raise them. The problem we face here is that whilst she is convicted, they are currently undergoing retrial, leaving a things in limbo. As you say, we are not a court of law, and when the court of law finally makes up its mind over guilt or innocence then we will have something definite to record. In the meantime I am just concerned that the article risks suffering from being a court of innocence; a lot of the content that is demanded to be added increases weight to those trying to show innocence. I agree with what you are saying about objections raised in RS's - but FWIW I think we are doing a decent job of picking up those threads bit by bit. Where the problem comes with things like trying to mud-sling the prosecutor, or stress that this is a re-trial and she is currently... (what? my understanding from picking at some Italian law sources is that her conviction is not overturned, but she is simply being retried - I haven't yet found a RS about this)
All I mean by the vocal fallacy is this; we should take care that people are not being given undue weight simply by virtue of shouting loudly.
I think that detailing specific objections to evidence/the trial as mentioned in RS's is a different issue from some of the material being pushed.
I largely agree with what LedRush has said above; except I do not see the relevance of the details of past infractions on the part of the prosecutor (other than to stress what a naughty boy he is :)) and think we can do fine carefully summarising objections to him. --Errant (chat!) 18:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
It seems like all we hear recently on this article is long speeches from Errant. I ask you the same question I did a few weeks ago, who put you in charge of this article? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you like me to respond in essay form? i.e. if you want to attack me Cody at least make a decent job at it --Errant (chat!) 19:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I would argue that "long speeches" that discuss content, rather than contributors, are quite useful and constructive. In general, it is much less useful and constructive to snipe at contributors, rather than content. Cody, please bear this in mind. SuperMarioMan 19:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Now if only the established editors would follow this advice, what a wonderful place this could be...LedRush (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't decide if this is a snipe at established editors (of which you are yourself one) or not ... pablo 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I admit that the article is better than it was when Mr. Wales first became involved, but it is a long, long way from being neutral. The non neutral tag is amply warranted. The discussion of the evidence in the case of ten gives little sense of the power of the defense rebuttal. The discussion of the luminol prints is a case in point. There is no science, logic, or forensic protocol in the world that would entitle the judge to say the bare footprints were made in blood.The continued mentioning of a shoeprint is just bizarre. The print was from the same type of shoe that Guede had and Amanda was never shown to have a shoe like that. Moreover, Massei tacitly concedes the point, maintaining throughout his discussion that Amanda Knox was barefoot. Of course we should have more information on Mignini and to do so is fair commentary not mudslinging. He stands convicted of serious crimes which have parallels in this case. He has also shown a willingness to use the full power of the state to try to crush and financially bankrupt those who criticize him. The treatment of Spezi foreshadows the treatment of Curt Knox and Edda Mellas. Finally, this suggestion that there might be as many problems with Guede's conviction is just mystifying. Guede stipulated to the evidence against him in order gain leniency. His DNA is all over the crime scene and he has not challenged the fact that it is his DNA. PietroLegno (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be left up at least until after the appeal is over. I see no reason to remove it. It at least gives warning to the reader that not everything in the article is accepted as fact. Issymo (talk) 04:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
My view is that it needs left up. I see many holes within it, I see constant battles, people still being blocked left and right. People that were great editors are still blocked. The argument still continues here clearly, that it is the Knox supporters trying this and that. Honestly it is just as much the Anti Knox ones who want to see guilt, just the same. So let us not call the kettle black. This is a huge situation, regardless if anyone cares to note or admit it, and it needs properly fixed. The Admins who blocked everyone in the last tirade of events have fled instant as Mr. Wales came to the page. isn't that ironic, yet those people are still blocked. The issue and vast pot of excuses given for blocking this and that is a shame a real shame. As Mr. Wales said above, Wiki is a great site, and once again I will say it is a sad, sad, sad, shame to see it carried on like a school playground of bully land owners. This has severely lost my faith in what I thought was an upstanding place. It really is unreal to see it. I have been polite and kind to all, at all times that I have been here and I have been attempted to be shoved, but I have a right to say my peace as well.--Truth Mom (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In the end..... the TRUTH is going to come out, then where does that leave this standing?........ Something to think about, really...--Truth Mom (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
But the TRUTH™, if and when it does come out, will not change Wikipedia policy of recording what is reported by others. We cannot speculate here about what that truth might turn out to be. pablo 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree Truth Mom and very well said. The recent targeting and topic ban of Wikid77 is an exmple of what is wrong with this page and Wikipedia in general. Mlauba and other editors who were a huge part of the problems with this article for a long time and banned many editors with views different than theirs showed up to support Wikid77 being topic banned. I think it is real disgrace what goes on in this page. It really gives me a negative view of Wikipedia. Why can't this behavior by these admins and editors be stopped. They are really the ones that should be topic banned if anyone. They've learned to play the system though. I don't think the NPOV banner should be removed while these editors are still involved.Issymo (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you have anything that you actually wish to discuss about the article here? If so could you restate it without including your opinion of other editors? pablo 08:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
In general, when an NPOV tag is placed on an article, it is in response to specific, perceived problems, which are then raised at the talk page. It is not intended to serve as a "badge of shame" (as Errant puts it), or to indicate that certain editors dislike other editors ("I don't think the NPOV banner should be removed while these editors are still involved"). That is categorically not how this sort of thing is done. SuperMarioMan 10:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Just two quick answers to Errant and John. Errant, you seem to be arguing that *in your judgment* we see a lot more reliable sources reporting on Amanda Knox because she (or her supporters) is making a lot of noise, and yet, there are just as many problems with Guede's conviction, so therefore we should reduce our coverage of reliable sources about Amanda? If I understand you correctly, I think my answer is that it is not up to us to judge such matters, that would be synthesis and original research. What the reliable sources say, is what we must follow. I have seen no reliable source seriously questioning Rudy's conviction, so I don't know what we could say about it.
John, you ask if I think the article should have an NPOV tag now. I think that as long as there are legitimate conflicts here about whether or not the article is neutral, we should have an NPOV tag so as to warn our readers that we haven't reached consensus. Unlike some, I am an eternal optimist, and I think we actually can reach consensus. I agree with SuperMarioMan, too: the best thing to do is to raise specific objections to specific parts of the article, with proposed revisions and quality sources. A general rant "this is not neutral" isn't as good as more specific things. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I think you've missed my point slightly. You brought up Guede with I've not seen any serious sources raise dobuts about his guilt; what I meant by the "vocal fallacy" is the assumption that appears to have been made that Knox pro-innocence advocates probably have a point because Geude hasn't had the same level of support. Some of the criticism of the case and prosecution is valid; and expressed by experts on these matters. On the other hand some of it is not as good criticism, for example the critique of the prosecutor, and we risk giving too much weight to that aspect partly because it is so vocally expressed alongside the more legitimate stuff. The point I was making r.e. Guede is that I could pick out several similar issues to raise and advocate about, that people have not done so is not because they cannot, but because Guede opted for the fast track process and does not appear to have anyone to advocate for him. And this is the crux of the matter; don't lend too much weight to the poor criticism of Knox's trial process just because someone is advocating it (i.e. the "vocal fallacy").
I'm not saying we should not be describing these things, at all. But Mignini is a good example; that he has been criticised (and by whom) is good content to work in. As is content about his reactions related to the trial (court cases). Exactly what bad things he has done in the past, or views on his actions as censorship etc. need to be considered very carefully - I am sure you agree that saying he has been criticised and then laying out all his dirty linen is basically advocacy. Finding the point where we go beyond simply recording the detail and into reciting advocacy is a fine line. --Errant (chat!) 11:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No offense Wales, but "may be colored by your own perspective" was a very ignorant statement; I did not come to this article until after that "open letter" blog post prompted your own intervention. Knox and the rest can rot in prison for life or be freed tomorrow, it doesn't really matter to me. What I would like to see here is an accurate and WP:NPOV-adhering article on the murder, as that is the actual heart of the subject matter here, not the conspiracy notion that there was a cover-up, a frame-up, or a case of police incompetence or rush to judgement regarding the current convicts. The Knox-is-innocent is given its due coverage in the article already, if we give it any more (even though that isn't to the the liking of the various advocacy blogs, some of which have representatives here), then that tips into WP:UNDUE territory. And we really need to bar people of the "the TRUTH is going to come out" mentality from this article. Editors like that art a part of the long-running problem.
  • There is no call for the NPOV tag to remain at this time, all it is being used for right now is a badge of shame, to mark an article that some do not like. Unless specific and seriously problematic content can be pointed to in detail, right now, then there is no cause for the tag. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
"Badge of Shame"? No, It is meant to protect the reader and let them know the POV and information in this article are disputed. That is correct and the banner should be put back up.Issymo (talk) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, there we have a problem. Because the {{NPOV}} template expressly says "Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." and notes that it is a template purely for editors. If it is being used for the purpose of informing readers of issue that is an incorrect usage, the policy was specifically put together that way to avoid situation where people couldn't get their POV into articles and used the tag to try and undermine the content. Or to put it another way; your description of way this tag should be used is the definition of "badge of shame". --Errant (chat!) 17:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Tarc, I just don't know how to talk to you about this. You don't seem to be hearing me. I'm trying really hard to understand you, and if you're saying something correct, I am not hearing it. You talk about "the conspiracy notion that tehre was a cover-up, a frame-up, or a case of police incompetence or rush to judgment regarding the current convicts". My point is that reliable sources contradict you on the point that at least some of these things are a "conspiracy notion".
Yes, there are conspiracy theories in the world, crazy ones that make no sense, etc. JFK assassination theories - the example you gave - are a good example. But there are also cases, lots of them, where there are legitimate objections to convictions, cases where there are cover-ups, frame-ups, police incompetence, rush to judgment. So I'm not getting where or why or how you feel justified in calling the work of literally dozens of reliable sources calling this particular case into question, for reasons that - even if we don't agree with them in the end - don't seem particularly wild or crazy - "conspiracy notion"s that need to be minimized in the article.
We have to follow the sources, and the sources are quite clear.
If all you are saying is that some people who have edited this article in the past have been unreasonable, well, sure. On all sides. But you seem to be arguing for more than that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect to Mr. Wales assessment here, all Tarc needs to do is give some evidence about what the "prevailing view" is in this case. At this point, it is just his subjective opinion which is at this time unsubstantiated. All Tarc needs to do is lay the foundation. There is no objective evidence one way or the other about what most people accept about this case and reliable sources have certainly questioned the verdict and continue to do so. So I would say the burden is on Tarc. There's no need to complain. He needs to lay down a proper foundation. That has not been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeniusApprentice (talk • contribs) 23:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The prosecutor & other criticism

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

So, detaching slightly from the above stuff... perhaps we could work on unifying criticism of the prosecution and the evidence. Currently a lot of it is dribbled around the article. For example Mignini; his conviction is slap bang in the middle of the trial section,despite occurring afterwards. Could we work a section between "Judge's Report" and "Appeals" which includes that note about Mignini as well as the first paragraph of "Appeals" and work out from there?

On Mignini specifically; I don't believe we should be detailing all of the things he has done that are objected to - it's a level of detail too far, but we can do a brisk (couple of sentences) over the details as raised in RS's.

Any thoughts on this? --Errant (chat!) 19:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. --John (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I would argue that a few more (concise) sentences on Mignini would maintain due weight. I agree that the current placement of the note regarding the conviction is distracting. SuperMarioMan 20:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. A whole section of critcism of the prosecution. There should be sections on Mignini, Stefanoni, Giobbi, Errors made by the foresic team, the flying squad, Massei. There is a lot of meat to put in this new section. Issymo (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea is to simply gather what us already in the article. Whether it can or should be expanded, being mindful of becoming a coat-rack for criticism of living people, is another matter. Tarc (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, an important consideration. Moderation is required. Listing each and every one of Mignini's misdeeds, for example, would be pushing it. SuperMarioMan 13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Question for Mr. Wales

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am archiving this because it was directly to me personally, but it was a very general statement, and I think we're better off working on specifics--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Mr. Wales:

People from all over the US and the world contribute to your website, both financially and in terms of donating time, effort, expertise and background materials, believing the mantra that this is "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit." A basic tenent of this website is that when writing about a living person, care must be taken to present information factually, neutrally and based on reliable source materials, so that defamation can be avoided. Why do those rules and tenets not apply to this article?

Why is it that some editors and administrators have been allowed to literally hijack this article and treat it as their very own pro-guilt campaign article, not Wikipedia's article? They have chosen to use this article and website to further their belief that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are guilty of a horrible sex crime. Yet, if these two students are indeed factually innocent of the crime, then this Kercher article is misleading and defamatory. The guidelines of BLP are not being followed, and the article has been defamatory for many months. These editors and administrators can simply disappear and leave Wikipedia holding the bag when the likely acquittal of Knox and Sollecito is handed down by the Court in Italy in a few months.

How would you like it if you were falsely accused of a crime and a major website painted you as a horrible sex killer, while you were still in court fighting for your very life? Think of the pain and humiliation that you would feel. And the outrage. Well, I can just imagine that that is how the Knox and Sollecito families feel.

Any NEUTRAL presentation of this story requires that editors who do not necessarily believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty be allowed to edit this article, yet they are systematically banned or blocked, as just happened to Wikid77 a couple of days ago. There have been a dozen or more editors blocked for trying to add some balance to this article. Any editor who tries to participate in the article who does not bow to the pro-guilt view is quickly hauled off to the ANI board for a taste of intimidation. All of their well sourced material that does not fit the pro-guilt mode will be removed or diluted or slanted. Their work will be reverted and reverted and reverted and deleted.

I greatly admire your website and refer to it all the time--many times per day--as a reference, but I often wonder if Wikipedia is broken when it comes to the Kercher article. Can it be fixed? Why not start here on this Talk page? What steps can be taken to address these issues in the Kercher article in an effective way? Can we develop a concrete plan of action to remedy these problems?

It is an honor to speak with you. I trust in your wisdom and I hope you will reply. Either way, thank you for your time. RockSound RockSound (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be better off posting this on his talk page. However re "Any NEUTRAL presentation of this story requires that editors who do not necessarily believe that Knox and Sollecito are guilty be allowed to edit this article, yet they are systematically banned or blocked ... " I'd like to point out that, as such an editor myself, I have not had that problem. pablo 10:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Amanda e gli altri"

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I've reverted this unexplained removal of "Amanda e gli altri" from the books section. Does anyone know of a reason why it should not be included here? I haven't read it, but the book itself has been criticised quite heavily. Is a book being bad reason enough to exclude though? Some of the others here are pretty ropey themselves. pablo 10:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The defamation case resulting from the publication of Sarzanini's book is mentioned in the article, so it is only logical that it should appear in the "Books" section. In a recent discussion about the books, I believe that consensus favoured notability (as evident in secondary sources) as a means to distinguish which publications should or should not be included. SuperMarioMan 10:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed.LedRush (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
[Own comment removed by Issymo [12]. TMCk (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]
I removed my comment. I even commented on why below. Is there some reason it is deemed necessary to add this comment that I removed my comment? Why? I've removed comments before without this being done. Issymo (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it too much - the usual approach for comments you want to retract but have received a reply is to strike through them using <s></s>. That's because missing comments can cause confusion reading back later :) --Errant (chat!) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, even so ... that Sarzanini's book has been censured for its content about Knox would suggest that it warrants a place on the list. The article itself mentions this book (but no others except Dempsey's, if I remember correctly), so it would be unusual to omit that one from the list and retain others that are not mentioned elsewhere. The Guardian link at the foot of the article reveals some additional Italian-language publications that are not currently included, but these are perhaps not notable enough to add. SuperMarioMan 13:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Withdrew my comment, got the book mixed up with another one.Issymo (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Reviewing the Guardian link, I can find four titles that are currently not included on the list. WP:FUTURE applies to one of them, two others do not appear to be particularly notable, the fourth is a possibility: I refer to Meredith: Luci e Ombre a Perugia (Meredith: Lights and Shadows in Perugia), by Mastronardi and Castellini. There is a bit of external coverage here, here and here. Apparently Mastronardi, a forensics professor, testified in the 2009 trial, which may add weight to its potential for inclusion. On the other hand, I doubt that its exclusion is too detrimental. SuperMarioMan 03:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Guede stated that they had become intimate

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We don't usually use weasel words like this. Do we mean that they had sex? --John (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reworded a bit according to source but still needs some ce I guess.TMCk (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. I further tweaked the wording of this section. --John (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
And by that you made it more neutral while preserving the facts I'd say.TMCk (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on photos

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have concerns that the photo labled - Pillow with Guede's palm print in blood - is way too graphic. It shows to much blood, and the only purpose is to show the pillow? Is there any other reasons to keep that photo? Also the Capanne prison sign is boring and unnecessary in my opinion. It would be more relevant to include a photo of the knife or something else.Issymo (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an image of the murder weapon would be useful. In my opinion, it would certainly advance the reader's understanding of this topic more than the current images of the bra clasp and the pillow (of course, the murder scene image is useful). However, removal of images that are not free content and not in the public domain is determined according to the extent to which such images adhere to the non-free content criteria. Wikipedia hosts many images that can be considered objectionable, but it does censor itself on account of such images. SuperMarioMan 10:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I needs to be noted that the knife mentioned above is the alleged murder weapon.BruceFisher (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

"Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death.[27]" This is an outrageous inclusion and it is stated as FACT! The NPOV BANNER needs to go up immediately. What kind of line is this to be included in this article. This violates all NPOV basics and it isn't even something the Massei Report has written about. This statement was chosen to show guilt in this article. This line needs to be removed and the NPOV banner needs to be put back up. This also demonstrates a futher problem of using the same sources for different trials. The trials are completely seperate and stand on their own. The source used is from Rudy Guede's trial but the Massei Report is not saying the body was moved. It looks like the two trial conflict. Issymo (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem with using two, essentially primary, sources in this way. Which is the accurate one to be used over the other? Why is Massei more definitive (and which reliable sources identify it as so)? Surely removing this sourced information could be viewed be a pro-innocence POV exclusion (yhink carefully on this please)? I'm not opposed to revamping the evidence section per-se; for example in the next sentence, in a section where we are laying out the various pieces of evidence, there is a sentence expressing a defence argument against the evidence. We need a secondary source (or several) which mesh the evidence together - one that will deal with it neutrally. --Errant (chat!) 08:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
But I thought we had secondary sources that said this wasn't true (that she wasn't moved after death. Shouldn't the secondary sources trump the primary? While we are waiting, I'll take a quick look for the secondary sources.LedRush (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
One source [13].LedRush (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is a misunderstanding. From the terminology stated, it is somewhat implicit that the killer disrobed her and moved her (presumably prior to raping). The Massei report doesn't necessarily have to state anything about it and the line doesn't imply that it was Knox & Sollecito (I would assume Guede). It isn't hard to believe and Issymo's overreaction and cry to throw up the NPOV tag is unwarranted. The ABC source is comparing the movie but they got their facts wrong when stating that no source had stated it (Micheli), so there is no reason to accept the ABC source. The some time in the statement is ambiguous.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not an overreation that the article states as FACT that MK's body was disrobed and moved AFTER DEATH. The Massei report does not say this. The actual evidence doesn't say this either. Issymo (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that this is a BLP violation (the movement/non-movement of the body doesn't implicate or exonerate any of the three) the sourcing for the movement of the body is poor and contradictory. This sentence should go; not because it's a violation, but because it's inadequately supported. pablo 08:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Language Intended to Clarify Status of Defendants

Latest comment: 13 years ago44 comments10 people in discussion

Here is an example of the type of blocking of information that goes on here. I attempted to clarify that the defendants were convicted in separate proceedings. But Pablo deleted that edit. Why is that verboten information?

I also attempted to clarify that Guede's current status is that of a final conviction due to his two appeals failing. But Pablo also deleted that information. Again, this central, most crucial information is somehow off limits?

I also attempted to clarify that Knox and Sollecito are not appealing their sentences of 25/26 years, they are appealing their convictions. The existing language is confusing. But Pablo deleted this information.

I added that "they are currently in the appeals process", but this is forbidden information?

Here is how the second paragraph in the lede read after my edits:

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher's flatmates, were convicted of her sexual assault and murder in separate proceedings. Guede's conviction was upheld in two appeals and is now final. He is serving a sentence of 16 years. Sollecito and Knox are currently in the appeals process. A new trial for Sollecito and Knox began in December 2010 and is expected to conclude in late 2011.

Here is the language that existed before and that Pablo restored.

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher's flatmates, were convicted of her sexual assault and murder. Guede is serving a sentence of 16 years; Sollecito and Knox are appealing against their convictions for 25 and 26 year sentences, respectively. A new trial for Sollecito and Knox began in December 2010 and is expected to conclude in late 2011.

What I wrote is factually accurate. The paragraph without those corrections is confusing and misleading. RockSound (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rocksound is correct, the current version is misleading. Pablo, instead of reverting, could you try fixing what you perceive to be issues with Rocksound's edits?LedRush (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Neither paragraph states that they are appealing their sentences. They are appealing against their convictions. I've no objection to stating that the trials were separate. pablo 15:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think the current version is misleading, but there is merit to RockSounds suggestions (I would avoid the use of the word "final" though). How about:
Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on XXXX (in a fast-track trial) of sexual assault and murder, he is serving a sentence of 16 years and has exhausted his appeals process. Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher's flatmates, were convicted in a separate trial, concluded on XXXX, and are serving 25 and 26 years respectively. Both have appealed the convictions and are undergoing a new trial which began in December 2010 and is expected to conclude in late 2011
How's that? I think it makes sense to deal with the two somewhat separately seeing as they are distinctly different processes at different stages and with differing types of coverage. --Errant (chat!) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The new text has its merits. However, if Guede's (confirmed) 16-year sentence is to be mentioned, shouldn't the (initial) 26- and 25-year sentences against Knox and Sollecito also be mentioned? I know that the appeal has yet to conclude, but these were the sentences imposed in December 2009, were they not? It seems curious to me that the lead section should omit them. SuperMarioMan 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Seems to cover it. The wording 'in the appeals process' was a bit vague. pablo 15:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) agreed.LedRush (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I added it because there seems agreement on this. No prejudice for changing it again if we decide otherwise. --Errant (chat!) 15:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that Guede has a "final conviction" under Italian law. I see no reason not to include such a crucial fact.

There is a very big difference between someone still going through the appeals process and someone who has a final conviction. RockSound (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, "exhausted the appeals process" means just that, really, but I suppose it cold be made even clearer. pablo 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Well I was going for something that was explicit on what he options he has run out of; "final conviction" could be considered vague - unless it is specific terminology under Italian law, of course, in which case it would make more sense. --Errant (chat!) 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


It is not fair or reasonable to go ahead and substitute paragraphs before everyone has had a chance to weigh in. You wait just eleven minutes before substituting a whole paragraph that I had been working on? This process is just ridiculous. I can see why so many people have dropped out.

Also, Knox and Sollecito are not serving sentences. That will not happen until a final conviction has been entered. They have been in pre-trial detention since 2007 due to being deemed flight risks.

The term final conviction is a term of art and it is included in the Italian Constitution.RockSound (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is fair. Do you have a source that discusses this specific terminology in Italian law, we could work up a tweak to that sentence to get the right wording in. It simply seemed a little on the wrong side of trying to stress his guilt :) happy to tweak that. According to my reading of the sources and law, Knox and Sollecito are convicted and are currently serving out those sentences; the new trial does not overturn the conviction but will supplant it. Again, happy to consider RS's that discuss the distinctions involved (every time I ask about this, though, none are provided) --Errant (chat!) 15:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
On the issue of replacing content - don't forget you are replacing someone else's content too. It is just what happens. There were specific (and legitimate) problems with what you added and I tried to clarify them by working in the two viewpoints. As pointed out, this is how the process goes - and if you disagree with the new content propose specifics (here on the talk) as I did and see what the response is like. --Errant (chat!) 15:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(2ecs) Rocksound: Errant's text is not etched in stone. It is merely something we generally agreed to be ok. As with all edits, it can be improved, as Errant, Pablo and you have all attempted to do. Errant is right; this is just the natural editing process.LedRush (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I see RockSound removed reference to the sentences - I added it back but clarified the wording to say they were given the sentences. Do we have a source to explain they are currently not serving the sentences? Every source I have read says they are serving them, so if we have one to clarify this as wrong then that would be good. --Errant (chat!) 16:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that Knox and Sollecito are not yet convicted until a final conviction has been entered. That is the way it works in Italy and it is included in the Italian Constitution. Just pull up a translation of the Italian Constitution and you will see it for yourself. They most definitely are not serving any sentences before a final conviction.RockSound (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Where do the defendants reside while the appeals process plays out? Tarc (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Ok, here is the problem as best I can lay it out, lets see is we can work this through (without too much OR). Firstly the Italian Constitution mentions guilt, not conviction. (in fact it says A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed., but passes little comment on what constitutes a "final sentence" or how they are considered during appeal process) I can't find the specific legislature in Italian that deals with defining all this. However as best I can make out:
  • They were convicted in '09 of the crimes, but can appeal the convictions in two courts (this is nothing different from similar legal systems)
  • They were handed sentences with the conviction (again, nothing different there)
  • They may still be simply detained and not yet serving sentences whilst the appeal and retrial occurs (again, this is not at all uncommon)
There are some clear facts here - a court convicted them, they have been given sentences, they can appeal to two higher courts before that avenues is exhausted, they are doing so and a retrial is occurring. The two ambiguous factors are how they are considered legally (convicted or not - though Italian legislation suggests they are considered convicted) and whether they are yet serving sentences (Italian sources are quiet on this)
Here we have a problem because all of the reliable sources state they were convicted and are serving sentences. If we can get together some sources to work out the specifics we need to do so - as it stands these RS's we have to stick to are fairly clear :S (I'm definitely open to clarifying this; perhaps adding "Since their arrest in 2007 they have been in pre-trial detention and have not yet served any sentence" - if we can source it). The core question here is; to what extent is the wording of RS's a suicide pact? --Errant (chat!) 16:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Though Errant is wrong on his first bullet point above (the Italian system of appeals is very different than what an average English speaker would suggest), his point is 100% right. We can't conduct OR to get to the "truth", and RSs seem pretty consistent that these guys are convicted and serving their sentences.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is confusion here because they have been in prison since they were arrested and remain there. They were placed there because it was argued that Knox was a flight risk and that both were dangerous and might offend again. This is not automatic in Italy - many accused murderers remain free until the end of the process. Mignini the prosecutor is himself guilty of Abuse of Office and was handed a prison term but remains at liberty during his appeal process. He is also spoken of as guilty although his trial process is not complete. If Knox and Sollecito were to remain guilty at the end of the process, no doubt time served would be deducted from their sentences. Because this is an Italian case, but this entry is mainly read by people in the UK and USA, it should be made clear the 'guilty' at this stage in Italy is not the same as 'guilty' in the UK and USA and we should not draw simplistic parallels. NigelPScott (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm no. They were remanded for the first trial no? Or have I got that wrong? Then after the first trial finished with their convictions, they were sentenced, and commenced serving those sentences. Then they appealed. Were they declared "not guilty" at this point? Is this the way in Italy? pablo 19:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)and before I'm accused of 'sniping' or any similar shite; I really, really would like this explained, with links to supporting sources. I have been seeking this here for over a year now  pablo 20:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding that appeals in Italy happen de novo, and none of the burdens of proof are different than in the original trial. The defendants have been convicted, but are presumed innocent for the purposes of the trial. (And if you don't want to be accused of being sniping or being bitey, I would not start off sentences saying sarcastic and rude things like "erm no". And don't call other people's characterizations of your behavior as "shite").LedRush (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
That's just about about my understanding of the legal position, and the trial de novo too. I don't much care about the shite; it's irrelevant to me whether it's considered "sniping". pablo 21:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you LedRush, you are right. I am trying to edit in good faith here. I know that other editors have been blocked for responding to comments like those made by pablo so I will not comment on what he wrote. There is a re trial. It is part of the Italian process. The defendants are not in prison because they have started serving their sentences. They have not. They would be free now if they had not initially been incarcerated because the prosecutor persuaded a judge that they might be be violent and/or a flight risk as I explained above. This is why prosecutor Mignini is still walking about in Perugia althought he was found guilty of abuse of office. He is waiting for his appeal to start. If Knox and Sollecito are still ruled guilty at the end of the process, they will then start serving their sentences and time spent in custody may be taken into account. I hope I have made this clear. This is why I believe that for reasons of accuracy the Wikipedia entry should explain that Guede is definitively guilty but Knox and Sollecito are not. Vilification has played a big part in this case and I do not believe that Wikipedia should add to it, even unthinkingly. NigelPScott (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to push unduly on this - but is there a reliable source that says this? Because all of the current sources say something completely different. And I just read an analysis piece in an Italian magazine which actually did touch on this issue which said they are now officially serving sentences.
I have no objection to explaining these distinctions, but we can only record RS's --Errant (chat!) 22:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I, however do wish at this point to push. Nigel, where are the sources, do you have them please? pablo 23:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have found this source and it refers to the specific section of the Italian Consitution that states that defendants are not considered guilty until they are at the end of the legal process, "3.4 Principles underlying pre-trial detention (I leave a chunk out here) Presumption of innocence means that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (Art. 6 (2) ECHR). The presumption of innocence is also codified in Art. 27(2) of the Italian Constitution, which states that “the defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed”.
The document is a PDF. This part is on page 22. The title is: "Pre-trial Detention in the European Union - An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU - A.M. van Kalmthout, M.M. Knapen, C. Morgenstern (eds.) ISBN: 978-90-5850-524-8 The web address is - http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/criminal/procedural/doc/chapter_15_Italy_en.pdf NigelPScott (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
There's absolute guilt, which applies to the person who committed the crime. (Often this is a bit of a philosophical thing; to know for a fact, beyond all doubt whatsoever, that the person actually did it you would have to have some pretty strong evidence, or be that person yourself).
There's presumption of innocence, which applies to anyone accused of a crime.
There's being found guilty by a court, (which is not the same as absolute guilt mentioned above: we cannot state "person X is guilty" as a fact, but we can state "person X was found guilty by Court Y on date Z.")
Someone on appeal has been found guilty. The fact of the appeal does not change that. They are presumed innocent for the purposes of the appeal trial, but the fact of the appeal doesn't actually negate the original verdict. I can't see anything in this document that states that the situation in Italy is wildly different from the UK or US in this respect. And I think it's stretching things to breaking point to suggest that we should not mention the original verdict until the appeal is over because to do so would be biased. pablo 13:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The original verdict must be mentioned. I agree with Pablo's breakdown above. My point was that because during the appeals the appellants/defendants have a new trial and are still presumed innocent (two huge differences than the US system), this should be clearly stated. Also, we need to be careful of using terminology that implies something different to someone familiar with common-law legal structures (primarily native english speakers (the readers)) than is actually true for the Italian legal system.
To sharpen our discussion, what current language does anybody object to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)
I agree with (anonymous) above. I would suggest replacing the current sentences with something like this: "Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student and one of Kercher’s flatmates, were found guilty of sexual assault and murder in a separate trial on 4 December 2009 but these convictions are presently under appeal. Under Italian law, defendants are presumed innocent throughout the legal process and a guilty verdict at any stage does not change this status." NigelPScott (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
As always; please present a source that makes the necessary distinction in this case. Note that all of the above talks about guilt and we refer only to conviction - it is better to stick to the facts (that they have been convicted). If we can source this whole thing of specifically not being considered guilty until a certain level of appeal is given (which, btw, is the same in the UK) then I think it is good article material but a bit stretching it for the lead. --Errant (chat!) 18:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see anything in this source to justify including the phrase "Under Italian law, defendants are presumed innocent ..." - they are presumed innocent for the purposes of the trial, but that's about it isn't it? pablo 19:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see support here for Rocksound adding the presumption of innocence to the lede. Perhaps there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a trial de novo is. It's a do-over. It's not a trial where the presumption is now the defendant is guilty. (By the way, there are trials de novo in the US -- it's just not the typical procedure. I was even involved in an appeal via a trial de novo.) Glrx (talk) 01:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Concur. Ravensfire (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I gave the reference above in the Italian Constitution where it clearly states that defendants are considered innocent until the end of the process regardless of any interim court decision. This is not the same as saying that any defendant in a trial is presumed innocent. There is even a separate legal category for prisoners in an intermediate state i.e. convicted in one court but still undergoing trial at a later stage: "imputato". People in this category are kept in separate prisons from those who have completed the process. This is different from the US and UK. I believe this distinction needs to be clear in the article. I can understand that other editors may argue that this distinction is irrelevant and does not need to be mentioned in the article because the defendants have been found guilty in one court, but I believe it is an important distinction. What I cannot understand is how anyone can question the facts. The Italian Constitution must be considered a reliable source. Knox and Sollecito are in a legally distinct category from Guede, plain and simple. NigelPScott (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There's no objection to including this material in the article. Such fine points do not belong in the lede -- especially when terms such as a trial de novo already imply the assumption of innocence. You apparently also have some mistaken beliefs about the US judicial system. If X has been convicted in a lower court, launches an appeal, and then dies of a heart attack before the appeal is complete, then his non-final conviction can be wiped out. Kenneth Lay's conviction for the Enron fiasco, for example, was abated. Now Lay's abatement does belong in his lede because the abatement was executed. Glrx (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Bigger improvements

This actually highlights something that I've found fascinating about this article in general. There's a lot of work to add seemingly small details and minutia to the article. But oddly, some fairly big events in the trail are pretty bare. There is nothing about any of the suspects being denied bail (casual mention of bail denied here) or why in the article. This source mentions that Knox's lawyers appealed bail all the way to the Court of Cassation. I've read several summaries of the court system, and it seems that the Corte d'Assise d'Appello is allowed to decide if the defendants, if convicted, could be released on bail or not. This whole mess just needs some good sources to straighten it out. This is an unusual court system and areas that differ from the US system need to be pointed out and explained with sources to prevent wrong assumptions. Ravensfire (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
This source points to the initial bail being denied in November 2007, with the final appeal being rejected in April 2008. Going to work both into the article. The sources are tolerable, but would love for someone to find better ones with more information about why, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
In the UK, the burdens of proof in an original trial and an appeal are the same? And appellants can bring in new evidence under the same rules as in the original trial? I am surprised to learn this.LedRush (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Not all of the appeals courts certainly (but then, not all of the appeals courts work like that in Italy, apparently) but the main appeals track is, yes, a trial de novo and you can introduce further evidence. I can tell you this for certain from experience. --Errant (chat!) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Cool. You learn something new...LedRush (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This is wrong. English appeals are not trials de novo. English appeal courts try questions of law not fact. LedRush, you were right in the first place. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Some are, some aren't. The difference that exists is that the English courts automatically bump major cases to the crown court (and appeals thereafter are not de novo). Were this specific trial performed here today, no, it would not be treated the same. I was a little intellectually dishonest with my answer with the reply (not deliberately) --Errant (chat!) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Body moved after death

Latest comment: 13 years ago33 comments8 people in discussion

Do we have any secondary sources to support the statement in the article that Kercher's body was moved after death? ABC news has reported that there was no evidence that her body was moved after death [14]. I suggest just deleting the statement under general WP policies regarding sourcing and for BLP concerns. However, I would not be opposed to attributing the opinion to the specific report and then mentioning ABC's rebuttal, though that seems unnecessary. LedRush (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Put the source of the original statement and the source that disagrees. Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, easiest way would be to replace the current wording with "Reports differ on whether the body was moved after death", then the two sources. I've seen this used in multiple articles and is a clean way to handle this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
If we found any secondary sources that stated that the body was moved, I might agree with you.LedRush (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The ABC source is incorrect as they state that no source states that the body was moved. That means we exclude the ABC source. That isn't a rebuttal on their part, just incorrect reporting. They state "There was nothing to suggest during the investigation or the trial that the bra clasp was cut off hours after Kercher died or that her body was moved. " which is clearly wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
On what grounds do you say "which is clearly wrong"? I would say that it is clearly correct. Issymo (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's not be hasty here! Maybe the ABC is correct. Our article says the body was "moved some time after death" but the source given to support that claim says no such thing. Moriori (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the ABC source is clearly wrong. Can you please show me a secondary source that says that the body was moved after the time of death? Also, where do they state that no source has reported that the body was moved after death? I don't see that at all. They say that there was nothing in the investigation to suggest it was moved. Perhaps other sources have come to the conclusions it was moved for other reasons.LedRush (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Right here is where the ABC says there was "nothing to suggest during the investigation or the trial that the bra clasp was cut off hours after Kercher died or that her body was moved." What bothers me more is that our article claims the body was moved but does not have a source to justify the claim.Moriori (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, Dateline NBC as source here, in an interview with Nadeau where she states that during trial..."The prosecution also asserted the body was moved after Meredith died; blood smears on the floor described the motion. Also the bed cover thrown over it had no transfer blood on it, meaning the victim's blood had dried before the body was covered up.".
This seems to answer both of your questions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Alas, no. The best that the source would allow in here would be that "Nadeau has stated that the prosecution asserted that...".LedRush (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
(EC) Right then BH, who should remove the irrelevant source in the article and replace it with the one you have given? And, who should amend that paragraph to say something like Ravensfire suggested, that reports differ on whether the body was moved after death, and giving both the opposing NBC and ABC sources? Moriori (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The statement should be deleted. If the information is so important, why have no RSs commented on it (BH's example is an interview with someone who said the prosecution asserted something)? To have this type of statement in here, which bring up such serious BLP issues, we should have rock solid sources.LedRush (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If either the prosecution asserted the body was moved or Micheli asserted it in his findings, then ABC would be flat wrong that no one else put this forth in trial. I don't see ABC contesting anyone else's statements about the body having been moved but rather that they failed to find it and then stating it as a presumed fact. I'm suggesting that the ABC source not be used as it appears to be errant. I suggest that we keep looking until we find something more concrete or compelling than what we currently have. What does Nadeau's book have on this? It may trace back to a more concrete source.

How is the statement that the body may have been moved a potential BLP violation? ...and against whom?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue for those accused of the murder, (it states as fact a piece of information that would implicate the appellants). And I still don't see proof that ABC's opinion is wrong or that it should be discounted. At the absolute worst, it is an opinion about evidence of the trial. But seeing as we have no secondary sources to contradict it, there isn't an issue. As this is such a big BLP violation, I am deleting the sentence. If secondary sources (rock solid ones) are found, we can add it back with the caveat suggested above.LedRush (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
With a discussion going on here, why would you suddenly declare that you are deleting the sentence? That comes across as bad faith. Please wait until things are decided upon.
If the body was moved that does not necessarily implicate Knox & Sollecito...I would personally believe Guede. No source has stated clearly who moved the body so this isn't a BLP issue at all. Either the body was or wasn't moved. If it was, we don't remove things because it might implicate the accused. Let's try to deal with the facts of the case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
"Bad faith", says the guy who deleted the dubious tag without finding any evidence to support the proposition that it wasn't dubious. Per BLP, it must be deleted first and then re-added after discussion. It is also a BLP issue for Guede, as he is also accused, but the implications are somewhat less.LedRush (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I did find a source which supported that. It is not a BLP issue for Guede...he's convicted! You haven't made the case that it is a BLP violation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No, you found a source that said that someone said that the prosecution said that. Huge difference.LedRush (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in what you removed is a BLP violation at all. The facts or possible facts stand apart from the accused. If they didn't do it then they didn't do it...If they did, then they did. We don't whitewash the crime because of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
There can't be a whitewash because there haven't been any secondary sources that have said what the article does.LedRush (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree that the prosecution has stated that the body was moved?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree the defense has said the body was not moved after death? The sentence should be removed. The article should not state things that are in dispute as fact. Issymo (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe it, but we don't have good evidence to support it. All we have is that somebody said that they prosecution said that the body was moved.LedRush (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I concur - and it would be a bad idea to leave the article open to any "the prosecution said X but the defence said Y" bloat here, this has been a huge problem in the past and makes for a huge, muddled read. pablo 12:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this sufficient?

  • "The prosecution also asserted the body was moved after Meredith died; blood smears on the floor described the motion. Also the bed cover thrown over it had no transfer blood on it, meaning the victim's blood had dried before the body was covered up." MSNBC. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That is the quote from Nadeau we've been discussing already. That supports "Nadeau said that the prosecution said that..."LedRush (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Nadeau is wrong again. Her sentence "the bed cover thrown over it had no transfer blood on it, meaning the victim's blood had dried before the body was covered up." is simply not true. The duvet has a great deal of blood on it and the stains were obviously made while the fatal wound was bleeding heavily. Here are photos of the duvet - http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/duvet.html Issymo (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a reliable source, and your statement is pure OR. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand IIP can not be used as a source. Isn't a photo a PS instead of OR? This is the discussion page though and it is an actual photo that proves that Nadeau, or actually what the prosecution said, is wrong. I think the language used in the article "Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death.[27]" is stating disputed facts are fact. This should not be allowed. Only things that are not disputed should be frased as facts. The source given for this was Rudy Guede's trial but the Massei report is not saying the same thing. Nadeau is saying the prosecution said the body was moved after death, the defense is not. Issymo (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Bruce Fisher also states that the prosecution argued the body was moved. If Nadeau & Fisher coming from both sides, "guilters" & pro-Knox supporters, state that the prosecution made this argument...is this not sufficient to concede that they (the prosecution) did? If so, then the ABC source is flat wrong. Remember ABC stated, "There was nothing to suggest during the investigation or the trial that the bra clasp was cut off hours after Kercher died or that her body was moved. "....but clearly they are wrong. The prosecution suggested it. Mignini tried to assert that Knox & Sollecito came back later and moved the body. The ABC source is just slipshod reporting...not a rebuttal.
Now, I'm not endorsing Mignini's argument that Knox & Sollecito moved the body...but it seems apparent that she was, in fact, moved if nothing else to position her on the pillow. Personally, I don't have a problem believing that this was likely Guede moving the body. Most importantly, our article here does not implicate any particular parties as moving the body...just that it may have been moved. This is not a BLP issue. In the trial section, it would be prudent to state that the defense contests that the body was moved (at all?) but certainly not by Knox & Sollecito. Is this a balanced way of presentation?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
You are ignoring two key words in this "after death". Those words imply that someone returned to the scene to stage the murder. I don't think it is enough to just leave it hanging out there that perhaps the other person accused did it. I agree that everyone admits the prosecution claimed this, but our article should not state it as a fact since that is highly disputed. "Her body had been disrobed and moved some time after death.[27]" is also in conflict with the Massei Report which claims MK was disrobed and attacked by the three of them while she struggled and does NOT say the body was moved after death. So if the prosecution at one time claimed the body was moved after death, this was not accepted by Massei and should be dropped at this point because it wasn't in the final report. Issymo (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Unqualified assertions from the Micheli Report which implicate Knox and Sollecito should not be in the article at all since Knox and Sollecito were not represented at that trial. The Micheli Report deals with Guede, the Massei report with Knox and Sollecito. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_32&oldid=1246617994"