Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 27

This is an archive of past discussions about Murder of Meredith Kercher. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

EDIT WAR

{{The article read as follows: From the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article; "Events surrounding the murder On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night.[16] At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered.[25] Kercher spent the early evening with three friends.[26] At about 8:45 pm, she left with one of her friends. They parted company near the friend's flat at 8:55 pm.[27]: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat.[26]"

"They parted company near the friend's flat at 8:55 pm.[27]:" This statement did not accurately reflect the information in the RS. ~~

The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." (page 37 of the PMF translation).

To say 'at or about 8:55 pm' does not accurately reflects the statement in the RS and is unreasonable. When I discussed (talk page) editing the statement to quote verbatim from the RS I was met with unreasonable resistance, a pretense not to understand what I was requesting and questioning why the time a person is last seen alive is important. I see not point in attempting to edit this article in any way what so ever. It is plain to see which camp is winning the edit war. Yoyohooyo (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)}}

To which "camps" do you refer? Where are the membership lists and joining instructions?
The article actually reads "They parted company near the friend's flat at about 8:55 pm.[25]: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat.[24]", how exactly does that contradict the sources cited? pablo 20:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"It is plain to see which camp is winning the edit war.". Would you like to explain that, or shall we assume the obvious? I would point something out, though; the protection of the page has clearly worked - it seems clear that extending it over the period of the appeal trials would be a good idea. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the motivation for Yoyohooyo's posting and, particularly, the heading. I haven't seen an edit war on this topic. There was some previous discussion about the precise wording on the subject and I don't think there was any objection to accommodating Yoyohooyo's aim of making the wording more imprecise, to reflect the fact that the exact timing is not known (though the word "about" aims to do this already). There was some objection (from me and others) to making a big feature of exactly when MK arrived home: I don't think Yoyohooyo has made a case for this particular detail of the case being especially important and, whatever we put in the article, it still comes down to the fact that we don't know the exact time. If Yoyohooyo wants to change the wording, the process for doing this is to propose new wording and get consensus (as Mlauba has already pointed out on Yoyohooyo's talk page). But please can Yoyohooyo not waste our time with accusations about edit wars and "camps". And, yes, Black Kite, can we please extend the protection. Bluewave (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{My understanding is this page was/is protected due to an edit war and many pro Knox editors were banned from editing this article. The history of this article clearly demonstrates this Yoyohooyo (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

I think your understanding that "many pro Knox editors were banned from editing this article" is mistaken. A very few people have been banned from editing the article (or, in some cases, any article) because of their disregard for Wikipedia policies: whether they are "pro-Knox", "anti-Knox" or "don't give a toss about Knox" is not really the point. Apart from those very few, the rest of us can edit the article...just not directly. All you need is to get consensus, and that's what you should be seeking for any edit, anyway. Then you just ask for the change to be implemented and an admin will do it. In this case, though, I think you had consensus at one point, if you look back over the discussion at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_26#Events_surrounding_the_murder. I advised you as such here. However you chose not to do anything about it and the page was later locked. Mlauba explained how you could still get your change made here. That was on 2 September. And you still didn't do anything about it. So, given that you've had two opportunities to make the change you wanted, but haven't bothered to do it, I'm a bit puzzled why you're suddenly making excuses that that there is no "point in attempting to edit this article" and that some imagined "camp" is winning the imagined "edit war". Instead, why don't you re-test the consensus for the change that you want and then get it changed? Bluewave (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bluewave, only one person agreed to make the edit. It was pointless to edit the article considering someone would change it back like it originally was found.24.158.99.200 Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC) (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

One person agreed and no-one disagreed, over a period of a few days. That's a consensus, or as near to one as you are likely to get. Yes, someone could change it back, but then, as I pointed out at the time, you are into the WP:BRD process. That's how Wikipedia works. Bluewave (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have been banned from editing the article because they were unable to conform to Wikipedia policy. What their opinions were or were not was irrelevant; it was because they were being disruptive. If an "anti-Knox" editor (if such a thing exists) had behaved in a similar manner they would've been banned as well. Conspiracy theories aren't going to work here, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder - clean up wording

Proposed edit: In paragraph 4 of the Events surrounding the murder section, change "noting that the 12:46" to "noting the 12:46".

Can we agree to fix this minor typo? --Footwarrior (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC) Done Black Kite (t) (c) 08:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading.

Large chunk of report copy-pasted for no apparent reason

{{The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading. CELL PHONE EVIDENCE, MASSEI REPORT: SUMMARY: This excerpt from Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read this closely, and read my notes you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the logbook Judge Micheli did not see, and did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei"s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe .

FROM MASSIE'S REPORT STARTING ON PAGE 26:

The presence of the Postal Police in the persons of Inspector Battistelli and officer Marzi had been occasioned by the discovery a few hours earlier of a mobile phone, and then of a second mobile phone, in the garden of the house of Elisabetta Lana, located in Via Sperandio, Perugia

This garden and the house, both hidden by trees, are in the area of Parco S. Angelo, a short distance from 7 Via della Pergola: a distance which would have required a very few minutes to cover by car (two or three minutes), about 15 to 20 minutes on foot (see statements by Fiammetta Biscarini, hearing of February 6, 2009) or less, (cf. statements by Dr Chiacchiera, who indicated that the time needed to reach Via Sperandio from Via della Pergola was 5 – 7 minutes, specifying that it was possible to go via Corso Garibaldi – which is 200 metres from Via Sperandio – or also via the park, declarations made by Dr Chiacchiera at the hearing of February 27, 2009, page 145).

(C) Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call.

                                           PAGE 26

The next day (November 2), as they were preparing to go and file the report, their son Alessandro Biscarini found a mobile phone ‚in the garden, in the clearing in front of the house" at around 9:00 am (declarations of Alessandro Biscarini, hearing of February 6, 2009, page 166).

NOTE: The phone found around 9 am was Meredith's Vodafone / Italian phone and it was likely off or the battery was dead.

Thinking that it has been lost by one of the officers who had come the evening before, Mrs. Elisabetta Lana phoned Police Headquarters and was told to bring [13] this phone to the Postal Police, where she was going anyway and where she arrived, with her husband, at about 10:15 am.

Dr Bartolozzi, the officer to whom the mobile phone was given, traced its owner: Filomena Romanelli, residing at 7 Via della Pergola in Perugia.

Shortly thereafter, and after Mrs. Elisabetta Lana and her husband had left the Postal Police office, their daughter Elisabetta Biscarini informed them that she had found a second mobile phone in the same garden of the house on Via Sperandio, between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon [Grace's NOTE: see notes below, Elisabetta found the phone ringing at 12:07 pm], a short distance from where the first phone had been found. This mobile phone, taken into the house and placed on the table, had rung and, the name of the person calling had appeared in the display field: ‚The name of the person calling was Amanda‛ (declarations of Alessandro Biscarini, hearing February 6, 2009, page 167).

The circumstance of finding the second mobile phone was immediately reported to Dr Bartolozzi, who asked that this second mobile phone also be brought to him.

Around 12:15-12:20 pm, Mrs. Lana was thus once again at the Postal Police office, this time with the second mobile phone, which she handed over to Dr Bartolozzi. ................................................... NOTE ADDED BY GRACE: The phone was laying on the table at Ms Lana's home when it rang the second time at 12:11:54 pm. (The phone's display said Amanda), as Elisabetta was on the phone telling her mother about finding another phone in the garden. Per Perugia Shock Mrs Lana was shopping when her daughter, Elisabetta called to tell her about finding another phone. .................................................

Alessandro Biscarini specified that the place in the garden where he had found the first mobile phone, a Motorola, was about 15 – 20 metres from the road above and that the second phone had been found a short distance from the first. He specified that the second mobile phone had been found by his sister Fiammetta who, in testimony provided at the same hearing, reported that on the morning of November 2, 2007, she was in the garden of her own house around midday when she heard a mobile phone ringing. She took this mobile phone into the house, where it rang again, and in the display field appeared the name of Amanda. .............................................................. NOTE ADDED BY GRACE: The phone was ringing when Elisabetta Biscarini found the phone in the garden because it was Amanda trying to call Meredith at 12:07:12 pm. After Elisabetta took the phone in the house and laid it on the table it had rang again because Amanda tried to call Meredith's UK phone the second time at 12:11:54 pm.

Meredith's UK phone received a call at 12:43 pm, and connected with the same cell tower (25622) it connected with three times when the phone was at Mrs Lana's home. This clearly shows the UK phone was not at the postal post at around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe.

NOTE: The following sections of this report provide you with the information you need to understand the truth which is essentially concealed with intentionally induced confusion. Massei's report page 323: "− 12:07:12 (duration of 16 seconds) Amanda calls the English phone number 00447841131571 belonging to Meredith Kercher. The mobile phone connects to the cell at [346] Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 9 (the signal from this cell is picked up at Sollecito’s house)"

Massei's report page 90: Things, however, went differently because the first phone call that Amanda made on November 2, 2007 (see the specific chapter dedicated to an examination of the cellular telephone traffic of Amanda Knox) at 12:07 pm"

Massei's report page 315: "Up until 22:13:19 at least, the phone was in the student’s [=Meredith’s] house; from 00:31:21 onwards, one can establish the presence of the phone in the garden [parco] of the other abode."

Massei's report page 315: "From 12:07 onwards on the 2 November 2007, Meredith’s English phone would then receive numerous incoming calls (which are seen better in the following section): the first [few] involve the Wind 25622 radio base station; subsequently, for the 12:43 call (still under cell 25622), the phone will have coverage [338] from cell 25603, since the mobile phone had been taken to the offices of the Postal Police located in Via M Angeloni in Perugia."

Massei's report page 315: "As regards 2 November 2007, Meredith Kercher’s Vodafone number received a call from Amanda Knox’s number (348-4673590) at 12:11:02 (the Strada Vicinale S Maria della Collina cell, sector 1)."

Massei's report page 323: "− 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)"

..........................................................

Filippo Bartolozzi, at the time Manager of the Department of the Communications Police for Umbria, confirmed that on the morning of November 2, 2007 Mrs. Elisabetta Lana had brought the mobile phone with her to the Police office.

                                             PAGE 27

It was a Motorola that she said she had found in the garden of her own home. Using this mobile phone, Dr Bartolozzi had made a call to a number in the Office and had thus been able to identify Filomena Romanelli, resident at 7 Via della Pergola, as the owner of the number of [14] this mobile phone. This check was carried out at 11:38 am (page 54 of the statements of Bartolozzi, hearing of February 6, 2009). He then sent Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi to 7 Via della Pergola: it would have been at noon (page 42 of statements by Bartolozzi). ........................................................ NOTE ADDED BY GRACE: The call Dr Bartolozzi made at 11:38 am is not in the phone records. ........................................................ Shortly after, he found out that another mobile phone, this one an Ericsson, had been found in the garden of Via Sperandio. This mobile telephone was brought to the office and kept with the other one. He had tried to find the number and the owner of the service of this second phone as well, but without success.

He had then thought that ‚the mobile phone could have a SIM card belonging to a foreign telephone company‛ (declarations of Bartolozzi, hearing of February 6, 2009).

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

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

At said dwelling they did not find Filomena Romanelli, the person they were looking for, for the reason stated above, but rather the present accused, who were outside the house sitting near the fence located almost at the end of the lane that leads to the house itself, once past a gate. They were, then, outside the house, near the side of the wall where the window of the room occupied at the time by Filomena Romanelli is located. Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC) }}

Two comments: 1. STOP YELLING. All-caps headers don't make your argument stronger. 2. tl;dr I am certainly not going to bother reading that text wall and I don't expect anyone else will either. Please summarize into something digestible. Reso lute 21:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No-one is going to read that wall of text, and equally no-one is going to take anything seriously that yells "BIAS" in capital letters. Please refactor it succinctly, and give it a suitable title. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ SUMMARY: The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading. This excerpt from Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read this closely, and read my notes you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the logbook Judge Micheli did not see, and did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei"s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe. Yoyohooyo (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

The Massei report is a primary source and so we need to use it with caution. The relevant policy is WP:PRIMARY which says:

Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

I think we should regard the Massei report as being a reliable (but primary) source for telling us the conclusions reached by the judges and their reasoning in reaching those conclusions. That does not mean that the conclusions they reached are factually correct, though. However, Yoyohooyo is suggesting that the report is deliberately concealing the truth. That is an editor's interpretation of a primary source and therefore unacceptable under the above policy. It is also an exceptional claim (that a panel of judges are deliberately concealing the truth) and would require exceptional sources for us to accept it. Bluewave (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ @ Bluewave: I clearly demonstrated the report deliberately conceals the truth in the portion of my comments that was hidden, however you must read the example I gave to understand this. If you will click this link you can read my example in a format that is easier to understand <https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1Cm6gYXd4LrozsuzIX0KoqTi8nV3AP0BC9AohMuHdaZw&hl=en&authkey=CK-R15QM/> You said "That is an editor's interpretation of a primary source and therefore unacceptable under the above policy. It is also an exceptional claim (that a panel of judges are deliberately concealing the truth) and would require exceptional sources for us to accept it." If you are willing study my example you can clearly see a panel of judges are deliberately concealing the truth by scattering pertinent facts in various locations throughout the Massei report. The truth is in the Massei report but requires a great deal of effort for the reader to arrive at the truth. A document that is misleading should not qualify as an RS under any circumstance. Therefore I request that the Massei report be disqualified as an RS in it's entirety. BTW, Why does the lock icon appear on the link I included with this comment? Yoyohooyo (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

Because it's a secure webpage. Bluewave is correct about the Massei report being a primary source and being used with caution; however, I think you will need to be more precise as to why it is actively misleading. Your example is unclear, please summarise it for the rest of us so that it is clear why you believe the document to be misleading. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It is near impossible for me to accept the claim that the judge's report itself is not a RS. It very much is, and I see no reason presented to remove it. However, if you have specific citations from that report that you feel are incorrect, and can support that claim with citations to other reliable sources, then I believe we can consider replacing some Massei Report citations with secondary sources, or change some citations in the article to read "According to Massei's report..." But we'll need those other reliable sources first. Reso lute 19:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Black Kite, SUMMARY: The Massei report should not be allowed as a RS. The report is bias and misleading. This excerpt from Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read this closely, and read my notes you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the logbook Judge Micheli did not see, and did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei"s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe. Yoyohooyo (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't waste everyone's time by simply repeating the same things over and over. Especially if you are going to bring absolutely nothing forward to substantiate your claims. Reso lute 03:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You ask for a summary, I thought perhaps you didn't see the summary I posted above. Why do you pretend not to understand the information on the link I posted here? It's not that difficult to understand. Clearly the Massei report is misleading. I thought wikipedia was be better than to allow deception into their articles but apparently I was wrong. At some time good judgment must come into play. Yoyohooyo (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted is hidden behind a registration wall I have no interest in climbing. Moreover, I am not counting on something uploaded to google docs to be reliable. Good judgment follows good arguments. And around here, good arguments are based around reliable sources. I've already asked that you bring reliable sources forward that can replace the Massei report cites, and all you've responded with is a repetition of the same unsubstantiated claims. Reso lute 03:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything on the document is from Massei's report. What more can you ask for? It seems you would rather disregard everything I have to say rather than make any effort to understand it? Yoyohooyo (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I want you to provide me with reliable sources which you believe can replace the Massei report cites. You are attempting to claim the report is "biased" and therefore not a RS, but you are not giving me anything better. Nobody else is buying the report is not an RS, so it is not going to be removed without something to replace. Please provide alternate RSes and we can discuss whether there is a need to replace the citations from there. Reso lute 16:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I see this as an important issue that requires extreme caution. [I’m speaking generally as I haven’t had the time to try to analyze Yoyohooyo’s specific assertions.] Of course the Massei report is biased. It’s trying to justify the court’s (prosecution) point of view. Whether or not it is deliberately MIS-leading is something we cannot prove or disprove. But by definition, it IS “leading”, i.e. it leads the reader to follow the judge’s reasoning. If the judge’s reasoning is incorrect (deliberately or not) or based on false assumptions, then the report is misleading. That would seem to be the reason for the policy on primary sources and in this case we have to follow not only the general guidance on primary sources, but the stricter rule: WP:BLP/Misuse of primary sources: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. That seems pretty cut-and-dried. Maybe the report can be used to confirm what the court concluded, but anything more than that (including details that the court believes to be "facts" in reaching its conclusion) would seem to be prohibited as they are "assertions about a living person". Demanding other RS’s, which may not exist, as an alternative to the Massei report is not a valid argument for using a prohibited source. At the risk of climbing on a soapbox, I will add that’s the problem with this article. We want to provide accurate, reliably-sourced facts; but too few facts are indisputably known and I fear that many of the sources we might like to rely on have been less careful in their scrutiny of officially-provided "facts" (what the prosecution and court have allowed to be released) than we are trying to be here. If we remove all contentious material, the article would be shorter and contain few details. And maybe that would be a good thing. Kermugin (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best plan would be to point out which statements about a living person are only sourced to the Massei report, and why those statements may be dubious. Then the community can discuss whether to remove them. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This Google document does not require sign in to view although you may need a Google account. Here I clearly demonstrated the Massei report is misleading. My notes are color coded in red so they are not confused with the quotes from the Massei report. After reading the document please respond.

<https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1Cm6gYXd4LrozsuzIX0KoqTi8nV3AP0BC9AohMuHdaZw&hl=en&authkey=CK-R15QM/> :Unfortunately a document published by the defense does not exist therefore it is impossible for the wiki article to be fair and balanced when the Massei report is relied upon so heavily. Like I said below, neither evidence of innocence or guilt should be in this article although Meredith's movements should remain, IMO. I would start with the night of Oct 31 and end at 1:15 pm Nov 2 when her body was discovered, however anything implying guilt or innocence should not be addressed. Yoyohooyo (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusions are original research, and as such inadmissible. And while I am not certain of how the Italian legal system runs, the defence's argument would be the opposing viewpoint of the prosecution's argument, not the judge's conclusions. As such, I consider that argument invalid.

@ Resolute, you said my conclusions are original research. It seems we can not have an intelligent conversation. In that case your conclusion that my conclusion is original research is also original research. I did not go outside Massei's report to conclude it is misleading. My notes point out where the report is misleading. The contradictions are in the report so I collected them to be compared to the misleading statements. Without my notes anyone of average intelligence (if desired) that can read will understand the contradictions without the presents of my notes. I do not think this is original research because everything necessary to understand the flaws are in the Massei report and it is not necessary for me to interpret the statements for the reader or go outside the report for supporting information. Yoyohooyo (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am going to be blunt: You will never get your way so long as you refuse to provide alternate reliable sources. I'm not asking you to justify your opinion that the judge's report is biased, so I have no idea why you keep repeating yourself as if that will change things. I am asking you to give us other reliable sources. Nearly all Massei report cites are in the "events leading to the murder" and "forensic evidence" sections. It seems very likely to me that both of these aspects of the trial will have been covered in the major media of the US and Italy especially. Bring forward citations that can replace the Massei report, and we can move forward. Otherwise, you are just wasting time - both mine and yours. Reso lute 22:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"Opinion" that the judge’s report is biased? That’s not an opinion; it’s an obvious fact. That’s the whole purpose of the report. The finding of the court was "guilty" and the report attempts to justify the court’s findings. (The prosecution’s argument and the judge’s conclusion are one and the same.) You can’t get any more biased than that. That’s the reason for the WP:BLP prohibition on use of court records to support assertions about a living person. And anything in the report that it claims is evidence or circumstance that leads to the guilty conclusion is an assertion about a living person. Please step back and look at it logically. Lack of an alternate RS is NOT justification to demand that you be allowed to use a prohibited biased source. That would be the same as someone else demanding to use injusticeinpeurgia.org as a RS unless YOU can provide an alternate for the same information.Kermugin (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"That’s not an opinion; it’s an obvious fact." - this is most definitely opinion, no matter how much you wish it was otherwise. Most of the cites of Massei's report relate to the determined conclusions of the case rather than a focus on a living individual. Black Kite suggested above that you haul out specific citations for questioning, and I'm asking for alternate RSes to replace those cites. We're both trying to find something to work with but you both offer nothing. I am not interested in emotional rhetoric. I am interested in RS coverage that we can use to replace these primary source links. I'm willing to be open minded about this, but you aren't bringing anything to the table. Reso lute 05:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

“Most of the cites of Massei's report relate to the determined conclusions of the case…” That is my point exactly! "Determined conclusions" are not facts. The report uses its "determined conclusions" to justify the convictions. Thus, those “determined conclusions” are assertions about a living person; and as such are clearly prohibited. No one should need to "bring anything to the table" in order to ask that the guidelines be respected and applied equally to everyone. WP:BLP Misuse of primary sources. Surely you must understand that this is the report the court uses to justify the guilty verdict. When you try to justify something, you are putting forth a one-sided argument. It is a biased primary source and I fail to see how anyone could consider it otherwise.

Try this on for size. It says on the injusticeinperugia.org site that: "All of the credible evidence in this case points to Rudy Guede. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime…" If you don’t accept that as a RS, then will you "bring something to the table" and provide an alternative that says the same thing? I believe that is the same as what you are saying by demanding others provide alternatives to what you would like to use as an RS.

Now, if I am misreading you and you only want to cite Massei to say what the court concluded and you are careful to express that distinction, that is different and I don’t see a problem with that. Just please don’t try to refer to the conclusions as if they were facts from a RS. I am not interested in emotional rhetoric either and I will not attack or be drawn into a fight with you - or continue an ("IS NOT!" - "IS TOO!") argument trying to have the last word. I simply say what should be obvious: the article should not contain any contentious information about any living person that uses the Massei report or other court document as a source unless it makes clear that it is only the court’s conclusion. I’ve been speaking in generalities. I’d like to see others who are more knowledgeable than myself be able to discuss specific examples without being drawn into emotional confrontations and blocked. When I’ve had the time to analyze the article more closely…Kermugin (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This article could impact the upcoming appeals so it should be eliminated or revised to leave out all evidence and any information that implies guilt or innocence. This is not a court room.

{{ This article could impact the upcoming appeals so it should be eliminated or revised to leave out all evidence and any information that implies guilt or innocence. This is not a court room. Yoyohooyo (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC) }}

I'll get back to you on that, but in the meantime, what's with the curly brackets? { pablo 11:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a patently absurd argument, actually. Are you really suggesting that an Italian court will be looking at an English Wikipedia article to determine the outcome of an appeal? Utter rubbish. Reso lute 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper that censors itself in accordance with the progress of current events, but an encyclopaedia that is intended to record information on notable subjects in a neutral and objective tone. Super Mario Man 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, unless you're willing to suggest that every website on the Internet removes all information about the murder trial, this is fairly ludicrous. Especially as this is probably the closest you'll get to a balanced article - I mean, have you seen some of the websites out there? Black Kite {t} {c} 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears you people are not concerned that this article could impact the upcoming appeals. Am I reading you correctly? Yoyohooyo (talk) 04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you are not reading people correectly. I think most of us have reasonable confidence that, by sticking resolutely to Wikipedia policies, we will avoid the risk of prejudicing the appeals. That is why we insist that everything that we publish is directly citable to reliable sources and doesn't involve any interpretation or synthesis of the sources. It is why we are so keen to keep the article fact-based, rather than allowing to express a lot of potentially-prejudicial opinions. It is also why we are especially keen on enforcing BLP policy to avoid judgmental or prejudicial statements about any of the people concerned. This is precisely why the admins here have been working so hard to prevent some of the changes that would have breached policy: things like describing any of the accused as "criminals" or including unsupported views that courts have behaved improperly, or indeed things like your own accusation that judges have tried to hide the truth. Bluewave (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your efforts would be best served by attempting to ensure that other websites that clearly do have a POV on this issue are removed, as opposed to websites that reference verifiable and sourced facts which you would clearly prefer are hidden? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We had an extensive discussion about what time Meredith Kercher was last seen alive (at 8:55 pm, which supports the prosecution's theory). This misleading statement was carried forward from Massei's report into this article. I was met with undue / unreasonable resistance to edit this article, to modify this misleading statement to accurately reflect reality. For example 'Sophie last saw Meredith alive shortly before 9pm'. Not only is the Massei report misleading, it appears editors involved with this article intended that this misleading statement from the Massei report be included in this article to sway public opinion. Wikipedia is not a court room, therefore it seems appropriate to eliminate all statements from the article that imply guilt or innocences, or eliminate the article from wikipedia, who's CEOs could be held liable if they know of this activity (corporate law does not always protect members from liability) and they take no action to correct the situation (proves negligence, resulting in liability), therefore I suggest we proceed to remove all statements from the article which are related to to guilt or innocence, or leave the article protected as is, and block the article from public view until all legal proceedings have expired. Yoyohooyo (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you ever plan to bring RSes to support your claims forward, or do you intend to do nothing more than disrupt this talk page by repeating the same things over and over and over and over? Reso lute 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why stop with blocking Wikipedia? Block all the newspapers, television broadcasts, and various and sundry websites.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I intend to stop individuals from using Wikipedia as a platform to publicly prosecute Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I hope you don't have the misconception that I think I am currently discussing this issue with people that actually matter Yoyohooyo (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edging more and more into the domain of personal attacks and heed the advice of others above. If we are to censor information relating to this case, does that mean all articles on Wikipedia discussing unresolved criminal cases should, as a matter of procedure, undergo selective blanking just in case the authorities are sneaking a look in? That notion is absurd. Super Mario Man 16:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Yoyohooyo indefinitely for a number of reasons, not least the edging towards threats to other editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Events surrounding the murder"

I am looking for secondary sources to replace or augment our reliance on the Massei report. Starting with the first one, I suggest that we replace the sentence They parted company near the friend's flat at about 8:55 pm with the sentence They parted company near the friend's flat shortly before 9 pm. I further suggest that we add this citation[1] from the Guardian in addition to the Massei citation (the Guardian says "just before 9pm"). What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be a noncontroversial edit and an improvement (but I was proven wrong before).TMCk (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Sounds good.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ‘shortly before’ seems neither too vague nor too precise, and the additional source is certainly useful. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Done Black Kite (t) (c) 21:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Shortly before 9pm could be read as basically being 9pm. There are a couple of problems with this. There is a video that likely shows Meredith arriving home at 8:53 pm to the parking lot and she would have most probably have waited until she was safely home before calling her mother at 8:56pm on such a cold night. How about changing it to she arrived home about 5-10 minutes before 9pm or about 5 minutes to 9pm? If this is about the time the friends parted company, I would say shortly before 9pm is not acceptable. If Meredith arrived home between 8:53 -8:56Pm then the friend did not part company shortly before 9:pm Jaberryhill (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Shortly before" is consistent with the source which actually says "just before", so the article is now consistent with a reliable secondary source. Jaberryhill, if you've got another source that seems to express the time better, please suggest it and suggest some improved wording. Bluewave (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

books out/coming out

FWIW: Found this article about books already out and those coming out soon: [2].Malke 2010 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to 'Forensic evidence' section

I'm looking through statements that are sourced only from the Massei report and picking out those that have an easily-identified secondary source, too. In the Forensic evidence section, we have: "Her hyoid bone was broken, indicating that she had been choked before she was stabbed." I propose adding an additional citation, as well as the Massei reference. I think the following does the trick:

{{cite news |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1197837/Wounds-murder-victim-Meredith-Kerchers-neck-blade-police-found.html |date=6 July 2009 |accessdate=29 September 2010 |title=Wounds on murder victim Meredith Kercher's neck 'could not have been made by blade police found' |last=Pisa|first=nick |work=Daily Mail |location=London}}.

This source actually says: Prof Torre added that there was also evidence of strangulation as the hyoid bone, a small bone in the neck, had been broken after pressure had been applied. Do others agree to a minor change, simply to add this citation to the existing text? Bluewave (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a minor quibble with the effect of this edit, although not with the basic idea, which I thoroughly support. The Daily Mail source -- at least as you quote it -- says nothing about strangulation occurring before stabbing. If I'm wrong about this (and I haven't read the DM article so I certainly could be), then go ahead. But if I'm right, then we would be using the DM reference to support both the hyoid fracture and the presumed order of events, which would be factually incorrect, and would require some reworking of the sentence to avoid putting words into the DM reporter's mouth.

And as long as you're cracking this particular nut, I would strongly suggest changing "choke" to "strangle." The two terms are qualitatively different, and I think it's at best imprecise to call this simply "choking." 70.89.112.185 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Strangle might seem a bit more like the cause of death which could be why they are using the word choke. Otherwise, I'm okay with adding the citation.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's a good point; I'll retract my suggestion to use "strangle." But my uneasiness about the Daily Mail reference not supporting the entirety of the moribund Massei reference remains. 70.89.112.185 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

US readers need to be aware that the Daily Mail is not a great source, it has a track record of 'creative reporting'. If it is all you have, then use it but it would be a good idea to check one of the (former) broadsheets - Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, Times. --Red King (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the Mail is generally only "creative" with its content when it's pushing a particular political or ideological point; since this story doesn't fall into those categories it's probably reliable - but another source would be nice, yes. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Prosecution and Defense Arguments

Minor error: "shopkeeper gave evidence that Knox had gone to her supermarket" should be "his supermarket," the shop-owner is a male as per reference. Please someone correct this. 92.14.225.224 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, it's fixed now. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Italian Book

No reasons to mention the Italian title of the book "Take me with you - Talks with Amanda Knox in prison" by Rocco Girlanda. The English version of the book is available on Amazon, so I suggest to mention only the English title. 79.240.94.61 (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Scott335 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure that’s right? The isbn still refers to the Italian original, and the only English version I came up with on Amazon is a Kindle-only edition. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Washing machine and bleach receipts

I reverted an edit indicating that the washing machine was on final cycle when the police arrived and one about bleach receipts. Both stories were reported in the press, but later found to be incorrect. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Article by Kercher's dad

He's a retired journalist, but I think it is the first time he has written anything on this subject.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1334777/From-Meredith-Kercher-s-father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html

Cheers. --92.14.4.128 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Kercher's locked bedroom

Kercher's bedroom was locked and had to be forced open, how was it locked? from the inside or outside, with a key or sliding bolt?92.3.219.1 (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kercher's bedroom door was locked with a key from the outside. The victim's keys have never been found. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If it was locked with a key, then surely it is impossible to tell from which side it was locked! --Red King (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That sort of works, but only if it was a biodegradable key. --FormerIP (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Knox's posting pictures of Kercher

I may be wrong, but didnt Knox post a 'kinky' picture of Kercher on her MySpace page just a little time before the murder? (I think it was MySpace - but I may be wrong). This doesnt seem to be mentioned in the article. Was that material dismissed as just innocent fun/normal behaviour or was it just not considered relevant? AiFWww (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

- can you source it, and if so, where to? that's the important thing here. pablo 18:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

God help us--what's next? You "may be wrong" indeed--but don't let facts or fairness interfere with the drama. Thanks, Pablo, for asking for a source, reminding us all that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of facts.

Avocats (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and this has been a particularly contentious article, with various advocates attempting to skew it. What it really doesn't need (no Wikipedia article does, but this one particularly) is unsourced speculation and rumour. pablo 01:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil reply, Pablo. (No idea what Avocats is on about but he/she obviously needs to step outside and breathe deeply a few times. Try to relax a little, my stressed-out friend. Count to ten before you lambast people for no good reason. You might do some good by yourself!) As to me, well I'm pretty sure there was such a picture - or talk of such - but the original has no doubt long gone from MySpace. Hard to know if there is an alternative source or where to begin looking for it. But as I said, as it's not mentioned in the article, I guess it must have been dismissed as fake or not relevant? In any case, I shall do as suggested and search for that source but if I fail to find any, I shall move on. (As should some others, clearly). AiFWww (talk) 11:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if it has even been discussed previously. But if we can't verify the information, we can't put it in. pablo 11:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I never suggested otherwise. But this is the talk page, right? Not the main article itself. And as I'm pretty sure I recall the image being mentioned - but find no mention in the article - it seems only natural to raise the subject here on the talk page. (But it looks like you can't do that without some editors getting all hot under the collar). AiFWww (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent change to the Lede

Until yesterday (or perhaps 2 days ago), the article read as follows:

"The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some^[who?] questioning the fairness of the trial."

The phrase "some^[who?] questioning the fairness of the trial" has been deleted for a lack of source. A quick google search found many sources. Could someone introduce the following one http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/21/amanda-knox-to-star-in-prison-christmas-show/

Perhaps the language could be changed to say:

"The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with many Americans questioning the fairness of the trial."63.209.178.11 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it more closely, there were even more references in the article itself which would have more than justified the language. Seeing as references are not required in a lede if there are references to this in the article, perhaps the original language should be restored and not reference should be added.63.209.178.11 (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The original wording was, I think, intended as a a one-sentence summary of material that is full cited later in the article. As such, it doesn't need a citation and the "who" template should have been removed. Bluewave (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, but there's also the question of neutrality. Why do we think the view of "many Americans" deserves extra recognition? --FormerIP (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When I said the "original wording", I meant the version that said "some questioning" rather than "many Americans questioning". I agree that we have no basis to divide people's opinions on geographical boundaries. Bluewave (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but why not "some questioning the fairness of the trial, some believing the trial to be fair and some not commenting on that issue". No, that doesn't seem right to me either, but we shouldn't be singling out any particular POV for a special mention in the lead. --FormerIP (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point! Bluewave (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I also meant a change back to the original language by my second posting. I only changed it to "many Americans" because that's what the source I found said (and I also generally believe that Americans are more sympathetic to Knox than the rest of the world is).

As Bluewave mentions, the language seems to be a summary of later material. I would expect that you would never comment on public opinions which don't comment on something, and I would also imagine that most people believe that most people convicted of murder are rightly convicted, and therefore it wouldn't be notable to mention it.

Regardless, I believe that procedurally, since the edit was made through a misinterpretation of WP policy, it should be restored, and then changes should be discussed.63.209.178.11 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In terms of following procedure, the thing to look at is WP:BRD. If there's disagreement about content, we generally leave it out of the article for the time being and discuss.

The statement isn't inaccurate and it is fair to say that it is referenced within the body. However, the question is what makes the statement important enough to go unchallenged in the lead? There has been an awful lot of media coverage over a long period and only a very few examples, quite a while ago, I think, of criticism of the Italian legal system. It's true that a couple of these have been on fairly high-profile US shows. But they've also been rather outlandish (Italy is still essentially a fascist state; the Italian legal system hasn't been reformed since medieval times; they're only doing this as revenge for Iraq; once the police accuse someone they always convict them because otherwise it's embarrassing - nonsense and conspiracy theories basically). I haven't seen any actual analysis or discussion to back this up. This fringe commentary isn't at all representative of the coverage overall, so why flag it up in the lead? --FormerIP (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I got something very different from WP:BRD. What I got is that someone could be bold and change something, then if there is disagreement you would revert it and discuss it. Seeing as this was deleted not because of the content but because a lack of citation, and that per WP policy a citation is unnecessary here, it should be reverted and then discussed.

On the substantive point, I've never seen any of the outlandish accusations to which you refer. The criticisms I've read have all been on the facts of the case and the conduct of the prosecution. Admittedly, I am late to the game and perhaps the outlanding claims have dissipated as time has gone on, but we need only look to the current citations in the article for all the support we need on this. Your claim that this would be "fringe commentary" surprises me, as I can't find any American media source which purports that the trial was fair, but I can find several that report on people believing it isn't. Even the UK stories, which are decidedly more convinced of Knox's guilt, one of the top Telegraph stories discusses the holes and unanswered questions of the trial.

Regardless, there is unquestionably a large and very local group of people who believe the trial was unfair, and that media has paid an incredible amount of attention to these people (unlike in other criminal cases). One of the biggest reasons that anyone (in the US, at least) even knows about this story is because of these types of questions. For these reasons, a simple half-line mention about one of the defining aspects of this trial seems more-than warranted.63.209.178.11 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well apologies for any confusion first off, but I was looking at the wording in the body when I wrote that last post, which obviously I shouldn't have been.

Overall, there's been a lot of controversy over this article and we reached a position where it was agreed not to try to push any POV within the lead. I think that is still the best way. The reasons for notability in this case may be in the eye of the beholder, but supposing that it is most notable because it featured on 60 Minutes or whatever does not seem to me to be the way to go.

I think the idea that there American coverage is exclusively or even in the mostpart pro-Knox is unsupported. You say you can't find and coverage that depicts the trial as fair, but there's coverage by Wendy Murphy, Ann Coulter and Jeanine Pirro already cited in the article. I believe these are reasonably well-known people. --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

*I don't think that this language is notable because it was on 60 minutes, but because it is mentioned in a massive number of articles.

The idea that American coverage is biased towards (or Pro) Knox is not only common sense (because it is mentioned so often in articles), but it is itself the subject of articles (and even a book or 2). This is well documented: http://www.newser.com/story/85268/how-foxy-knoxy-suckered-america.html
2 of the 3 references you have saying that the trial was fair I cannot check, but the third is by a non-notable law professor at a 4th tier law school writing for a newspaper in a town I've never heard of with a distribution of around 55,000. Congratulations, you found the woman who disagrees with everyone else. My point wasn't that such people didn't exist, but that the opinion is so rare it's hard to find (and by hard, I mean that I couldn't find it immediately in google...obviously this is not the best standard in the world, but it shouldn't effect my point).

And that one person goes against your point...she argues that she is a lone voice in a sea of Americans who are crying foul.

Also the idea that this recent edit reflect a long-standing agreement is odd. The language has been in the article for a long time, and the fact tag wasn't even added until November. The long-standing argument supports inclusion, as does WP policy on this type of edit (at least until a new consensus to remove it would be formed).63.209.178.11 (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't dispute that some of the US coverage may have been biased towards Knox (a bit of a red herring, really, because no-one is seeking to include "some of the US coverage was biased towards Knox" in the lead). However, it does not appear to be the case that this coverage is in any way representative. There are commentators who say they think she's innocent and there's some that say they think she's guilty (tip: for the Ann Coulter thing you'll need to search YouTube). If we're going to comment on the lead on what media opinion has been, we need to maintain NPOV and offer a fair characterisation, not just draw attention to one aspect. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How about The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some commentators questioning the fairness of the trial? Many Americans is too general a statement (all we have is opinions of commentators and cannot make blanket statements about Americans in general). We could also say "some commentators in the US" if we want to be country specific. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(in response to ForemerIP)My argument has been that "there is unquestionably a large and very local group of people who believe the trial was unfair, and that media has paid an incredible amount of attention to these people (unlike in other criminal cases). One of the biggest reasons that anyone (in the US, at least) even knows about this story is because of these types of questions. For these reasons, a simple half-line mention about one of the defining aspects of this trial seems more-than warranted."

In trying to disprove me, you have actually proven my point. In addition to the sources above (including a book on this topic and an article on this topic), the source you point to to counter my claim actually supports it by implying that she believes that Knox is guilty despite the sea of people who are crying foul.63.209.178.11 (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Regents, I am generally ok with that language, though it soft-sells the actual controversy over the fairness of this trial.63.209.178.11 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

63.209.178.11: I would agree that the fact that there has been some pro-Knox media is a feature of the reporting of this case, but it is not the only notable aspect. In the months following the murder, this had already become a very high profile case, mainly because it contained elements that made it great tabloid fodder. I don't think "this case got lots of media coverage because..." is appropriate for the lead, because it presents very difficult NPOV issues. On the grounds you are proposing, we should really also be drawing attention to negative claims about Amanda Knox's private life and the contents of her Myspace, which has been avoided - relevant to tabloid coverage, but less so to an encyclopaedia. --FormerIP (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unclear whereabouts

I haven't edited this article in months. The following is too vague for a first-time reader: "[header] Events surrounding the murder On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night. [So Kercher was at home alone, presumably?] At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered. Kercher spent the early evening with three friends. [Ah, no, at the house of one of the friends, or perhaps in a bar?] At about 8:45 pm, she left [where, then?] with one of her friends." Please clarify this important scene-setting paragraph. Rothorpe (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, it doesn't scan very well. It made more sense before we stripped out the names of Meredith's friends and other witnesses. This should start by making it clear that when Meredith left for home, all 3 of her roommates were known to be somewhere else. Then describe Meredith heading home and parting with the last witness to see her alive. --Footwarrior (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite for Knox/Sollecito not guilty

We need to assess rewriting sections of the article, now that an "impartial" judge has been assigned to the appeal trial in Perugia (Italy) for Knox and Sollecito (source: Guardian.co.uk, "Amanda Knox case: DNA evidence to be reviewed following appeal", web: Guar18). On 18 December 2010, against protests by the original prosecutors, new Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman allowed re-analysis of the DNA evidence and re-questioning of the homeless man (Antonio Curatolo) for possible mix-up of the date he saw Knox/Sollecito at the town square (claimed it was 01Nov07 but saw others wearing Halloween masks [31Oct07] on All Saints Day in Italy). The source states:

After two appeal hearings in Perugia, judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said he was convinced that the complexity of the case merited a review of forensic tests in the name of "reasonable doubt".

Because Judge Hellman is allowing a 15-January-2011 re-analysis of the DNA evidence (knife, metal bra clasp, and original DNA results) and re-questioning of the incriminating testimony by Antonio C., there are likely to be some major events coming from this appeal trial. We should be rewriting the article to downplay the convictions of Knox/Sollecito, and instead, focus on the "Lone-Wolf Theory" (for Rudy Guede allegedly returning to the scene of the crime that night to move and undress the body, taking Knox's desklamp for lighting). The partial clean-up indicates a person who didn't live there: a resident could have been more thorough. The reason to risk returning is obvious: it was a holiday with few witnesses, and he had to return to see did she really die, or live to tell. Kercher's 2 mobile phones were found, in lawn gardens, 1 km opposite the direction Guede lived (instinctively running towards home, then reverse running in the opposite direction, sounding like 2 people). This viewpoint involves the known sightings of Guede, as to when he could have returned to the scene. He admitted to being there, and witnesses said they confronted him running from the scene at the time of the stabbing, so there is evidence in reliable sources (WP:RS) to establish a timeline for a lone suspect. Basically, the focus should be about explaining the "Murder of Meredith Kercher" rather than Knox and Sollecito being temporarily found guilty and later freed after the appeal trial.
Again, I think the article should focus on detailed evidence about describing the murder (and to some extent, the assault). There is so much detailed evidence published in reliable sources to explain how the murder happened, such as identifying the cuts to Kercher's palms and bruises as defensive wounds by a girl who tried to fight her attacker, but was eventually stabbed in the neck. We don't have to speculate, just quote the sources. What changes should be made first? -Wikid77 (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You're having a laugh! Bluewave (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I think not. pablo 10:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wikid, and thank you for making it easy to ignore you. I'd say your post goes against the sage-like and in no way self-regarding advice you give out in your recent essay WP:QUIET. But that's just my opinion. --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I love it. We're supposed to write the article from the point of view of what a court has explicitly said didn't happen, because in a different trial the court might find that one of the two accomplices might not be guilty at some future, undisclosed time. It's projecting your wishes onto Wikipedia!

Instead, can I propose a more detailed sentence (a single sentence should be enough) stating what forensic evidence the court has agreed to review? Seeing as a decision won't be forthcoming until mid or late-summer, I think it has enough relevancy for inclusion.63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

For info only, I believe (from looking at non-RS sources) that it is the bra-fastner and the knife. Apparently, this doesn't necessarily mean that nothing else will be examined, because the judge can add additional things at any time. However, I have yet to see this clearly in a reliable source. I'd support making that change as soon as one becomes available, though. The most recent post on the truejustice.org site is worth reading. --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

RS source here (BBC) says it would "include" the bra clasp and the knife. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have altered the article, but based on a piece in the Guardian. --FormerIP (talk) 13:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

27 archives pages all because Americans don't like the facts

Intro:

The case received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States with some questioning the fairness of the trial.

Er, who exactly? Shouldn't that just read Americans.

This article is so biased towards the presumption that Knox has been framed is beyond ridiculous. She has been convicted in a court of law and until such time she is found innocent the article should be written to convey the plain fact she is serving 25 years for killing Kercher. That's not POV that's verifiable. Adding all this wishy washy stuff that challenges every piece of evidence is like going to the 9/11 article and adding lots and lots of conspiracy theories to every other sentence. Do you get my drift? I remember reading on here that Wikipedia is not about truth it's about what has been published and verified before. All the evidence implying Knox is innocent has been rejected by a judge in Italy! It's therefore not verifiable of her innocence. If such a section is needed it shouldn't it have its own section. The sentence structure is :

The evidence says she did. Next line, but the defence's own theory says she didn't etc. That is not balanced because it's supporting a point of view that the conviction is unsound. Ironically and it says so much about Americans, the white girl didn't do but it the black chappy said he didn't do it? Would there be any fuss, I am right?86.135.106.44 (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial case around the world, not just in America. Many people in the UK (including me) believe that in time, the proceedings so far will prove to have been a major miscarriage of justice and UK newspapers are increasingly reporting it as such e.g. London Evening Standard - 14-10-10. The case is notable, not just as another murder, but for the breathtakingly incompetent nature of the investigation and for the internet wide sociological phenomena of a modern day 'witch hunt' pursued by those who think that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. The entry above illustrates this. The introduction of racism into the debate is unnecessary. The protagonists need to be judged on evidence. Implying that race is a factor is arguably inflammatory and seeks to divert attention from the evidence. It is a good idea for Wikepedia to seek to present as full a picture of the proceedings as possible including the post trial phenomena of internet trolling on the subject. Legal proceedings are ongoing and a second trial is about to start so this story is far from over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NigelPScott (talk • contribs) 15:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Which hunt? Gimme a break —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.152.40 (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea which hunt. pablo 09:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

To 93.48.152.40 in Milan, Italy: the issue of "witch hunt" is complex, because the trials/appeals of Guede, Knox, and Sollecito have spanned 3 years, and there are a lot of details many people do not know. Initially, police found blood smears and blood pools, all around the room, not just near the body on the floor. There were blood pools on the bedsheet, a large separate pool of blood near the end wall, blood stripes in the wardrobe, concentric blood circles under the body, and a blood pattern on the wall suspected of being the "Celtic Horse" as another sign of a ritualistic, Satanic killing they believed would have occurred on Halloween. However, the other forensic evidence (with core temperature) indicated the murder occurred late on All Saints Day (22:30-23:30). Never the less, all the blood around the room still seemed to be an evil "blood bath" so they continued to focus on a "witch hunt" (literally) as a Satanic killing, despite other explanations for the horror of the scene. Careful analysis dispelled all the Satanic connections: the Celtic Horse was more like a smeared blood handprint, the blood stripes in the wardrobe matched blood gushing from the neck, the separate blood pool was not a sacrificial blood circle but contained dried hair marks indicating the victim died at that spot (in a pool of blood), but the body was moved later (leaving dried hair impressions at the blood pool). The groups of concentric blood circles (under the body) weren't circular blood stamps: they matched the circular shoe-print tread of Nike Outbreak 2 basketball shoes (size 48 [U.S. 11], see shoe photos on Google) plus the empty Nike shoebox found in Guede's residence, with about 10 such partial shoe-prints leading from the bedroom out the front door. Guede said he left the girl fully dressed beside the bed which had a duvet and pillow, but at his trial, he was cornered when he could not explain his shoe-print on that bedpillow, on the floor, under the duvet, under the undressed body, in her blood. Some murders have a "smoking gun", this one had a shoe-imprinted pillow which indicated Guede was there later to undress, and move the body, after the hair patterns had dried. This was all deduced in the Paolo Micheli Judgment (written in Italian). The censored version of the Micheli report, cited in the MoMK article as a secondary source, leaves out much of the gruesome details of the trial (along with no page numbers), perhaps as a courtesy to reduce the horror, but other sources reveal there was more about all those issues in the full Micheli report. When Knox/Sollecito were tried, later, these details didn't apply in their trial: they didn't discuss a Celtic Horse. However, the focus on evil shifted to claims of a sexual witch (rather than Satanic), but there was little evidence there: no sexual restraints, no sadism, no pictures, no potions, and not even wine was consumed. Instead, Knox and Sollecito were more like "huggy" bookworms. For those reasons, with details split between 2 trials, many people did not understand the original "witch hunt" and how the blood marks all around the room seemed Satanic, with blood stripes and a blood pool on the far side of the room. One day we will write all this in articles to explain everyone's confusion about the murder. Anyway, thanks for the question, and I'm sure many other people were also curious, but the article would need to be modified to include these details. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

source for this copied from User_talk:Wikid77 - I figured I should have linked the source: "Tribunale di Perugia, sentenza del 28 ottobre 2008 - Penale.it", Dr. Paolo Micheli, Penale.it, web: Micheli-J: at text "Ribadiva poi di aver toccato più o meno dappertutto nella stanza, anche con le mani sporche di sangue, senza tuttavia spiegare come mai una sua impronta si trovasse proprio sul cuscino sotto il cadavere, quando egli ricordava il cuscino regolarmente sopra il letto, dove si trovavano anche la giacca e la borsa che la ragazza aveva posato rientrando in casa." -Wikid77 (talk) 04:21, revised 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Where does Guede come into the "Events surrounding the murder"?

I've just finshed reading this article without any prior knowledge of the case and am unclear about how Guede is connected. His first mention is about him being arrested, but it's coming completly out of the blue. Did he know anyone else involved? HenryCauthon (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest we should edit the sections about each of the accused, to include a note of how they were connected to the victim and to each other. What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, having re-read the article, a very good point. Perhaps it would be a good idea to set the scene by establishing the basic relationships—how the people concerned knew each other—right up front in the lead. Specifically to add to this paragraph:

‘On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Patrick Lumumba, a bar owner. On 20 November 2007, Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was also arrested and Patrick Lumumba, completely exonerated, was released.’

that Sollecito was then Knox’s boyfriend, that Lumumba employed Knox in his bar, and that Guede was acquainted with Kercher (as I recall) through the lads that lived downstairs. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Guede knew the guys who lived in the downstairs apartment. He was introduced to Knox at a party held downstairs, but the two had never been observed socializing. Nor had Guede ever socialized with Kercher. Sollecito had apparently never met Guede. --Footwarrior (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Guede"?

I live in Portugal & have never heard the name pronounced. The Simple English version has 'Goo-yay-da', which is not convincing. I have seen it spelt 'Guédé' ('Gayday') in a French context, and long ago introduced that spelling here, but it soon got reverted. Rothorpe (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of what spelling is used in the majority of sources, Rothorpe. --FormerIP (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It was pointed out that 'Guédé' for every occurrence would hinder searching, so it was cut down to just one exemplary '(Guédé)', which has since vanished. But I'm asking about the pronunciation: the article should give it. Any idea? Rothorpe (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

In IPA, I think the most obvious pronunciation would be ɡede. ɡɛde or ɡɥede might also be possible - probably not, and I'm also not even sure I transcribed the last one correctly, but it could depend on the Ivoirian accent, which I know nothing about. Apologies that I'm not trying to make a pretend English word for it, but obviously how you pronounce that word would then vary according to your accent. --FormerIP (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if the French acute accents are there. Which would probably mean 'Gayday' in English. And 'Gwehdeh', ɡwɛdɛ, in Italian, whether they are there or not. Rothorpe (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The French pronunciation would be the appropriate one for the article, though. I think "Gayday" (ɡeɪdeɪ) should be avoided for obvious reasons. --FormerIP (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Guede had adopted Italian nationality and had presumably adopted an Italian pronunciation of his name (though it would be good to find a reference). I'd have thought there was a good argument for including both pronunciations. Bluewave (talk) 11:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If he had adopted an Italian pronunciation he could have done that either by saying his name in the way an Italian name spelled in the same way would be pronounced or by approximating the sound of his name in an Italian accent. We have no way of knowing which it might have been, though. --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We are using the most common spelling in the available sources, so that's good.. We're just speculating as to pronunciation, though, it is probably pronounced differently in Italy to what it would be in Côte d'Ivoire. No reason not to include alternative pronunciations though. pablo 14:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If we add pronunciations, we should only include them where we can be reasonably confident about them. --FormerIP (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, we ought to do the same for Sollecito, while we're about it. Bluewave (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that Sollecito has the stress on the 'e', so we could put that in. But with Guede, we can indeed only say 'probably'. Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there's any real issue over Guede either. It's ɡede, all said and done. But I also have no strong opinion either way about including pronunciations in the article.--FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The likely pronunciations:

Pronouncing "Guede": - Many American journalists went to Perugia, talking to the neighbors, and the pronunication of "Guede" (the spelling on his photo ID card) came across as "Goo-Yay-dah" as matching the French accents for "é" in terms of the 3 syllables. Compare to the common French word "étagère" (shelf-rack), pronounced as "Ay-tah-zher" whereas "Guede" could be spelled "Guédè" (in French) to match how people said his name in Perugia. Makes sense now.
Pronouncing "Sollecito": - The word "sollecito" is Italian for a "reminder" or momento. The "ci" is said as "chee" for words like ciao ("chee-ow" or "chow"). I've heard the accent on the "e" with pronunciation as "So-LAY-che-toe" (rather than "So-lah-CHEE-to"). Compare with the French circus "Cirque du Soleil" just as a reminder(!).

Hence, "goo-Yay-dah" and "so-LAY-che-to" (convert to IPA) are what journalists in Perugia have said. Thank you for noting this issue. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's not a diphthong, as in 'soleil', just a rather long 'e' sound. I should have thought to look in my Italian dictionary: basically 'prompt', it agrees; it doesn't give the noun meaning, just the adjective, but that's probably because it's 1980 vintage. Still puzzled by "goo-Yay-dah", though; "goo-WAY-duh" (ɡɥedə) would seem more likely. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Names of supporting personnel

26-Dec-2010: Now that the appeal trial is underway, we are again hearing about the supporting personnel, and witnesses such as homeless Antonio C. who is to be re-questioned about which days he saw what. This re-opens the issue of naming the supporting personnel in articles:

Form 1a: Refer to a John Smith with last initial as "John S."
Form 2a: Refer to a John Smith with first initial, "J. Smith".

Which should be used? Now that Sollecito's attorneys have re-examined his computer, they reported new evidence to show he was active on his computer for more hours than the prosecution claimed in the original trial (German source: "Prozess gegen Amanda Knox" ["Trial of ~ ~"], by Andrea Bachstein, Perugia, 2010-11-25, URL: SuedDeut-83)^{[failed verification]} ({{passed verification}} German text: "Sollecitos Anwalt Luca Maori sagte nach dem Termin ..., er verspreche sich viel von der neuen Analyse des Computers von Sollecito. An ihm will der Student zur fraglichen Zeit gesessen haben.")^{[failed verification]}. So, we might have to identify an expert who concluded Sollecito (the Student) was home during the time. These names are needed due to the concerns of WP:WEASEL in tagging the text as "^[who?]" where we can't just say that "some computer expert" concluded Sollecito was active on his computer after re-examining the data, or "some housekeeper" said there was no smell of bleach at Sollecito's home even though a small cap-full of bleach would have made the entire place reek of chlorine. There have been multiple experts and multiple housekeepers. I realize that particular editors want to remove all the supporting names from the article, but that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Hence, we need to determine how these names will appear, as the appeal trial is about to explode with new revelations about the evidence, and very likely will change the whole idea of how the murder occurred. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If any of the witnesses' evidence turns out to be so revelatory that it needs to be included in the article, then this issue can be looked at then. I don't think there's much point having a long discussion about something that may never be needed. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly vote for trying to avoid naming the incidental people, if at all possible. This is the usual practice in Wikipedia. I think the worries about weasel words may turn out not really to be a concern. It would be an example of weasel words to say "many computer experts believe that..." but it is not a problem to say "a computer expert testified in court that..." (provided we can give a citation that a computer expert did indeed do this). Naming the expert in question doesn't really add anything, unless the computer expert was sufficiently well-known for this to be important. If it was a matter of "Bill Gates testified in court that....", we'd probably name him! So, as Black Kite recommends, lets leave this until the problem really arises but, in the mean time, please, let's try and avoid having to name incidental people. Bluewave (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how naming the witnesses helps the article, unless the identity of the person somehow informs our opinion of the facts. LedRush (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikid77, this is another "solution" looking for a problem. pablo 23:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Forensic evidence

I've just made some changes to this section. Much of this is just copyediting and reducing and hopefully uncontroversial. There's a couple of things I thought I should mention in talk, though.

I left references in the article to where Guede's DNA was found at the scene, but removed references to where it wasn't. It seems to me that, now his conviction has been upheld by two appeals, there is no reason to suppose that the fact that there are parts of the flat where he didn't leave DNA is important. Also, given that his DNA was found on the victim's clothes, the rather less incriminating claim that he may have taken a dump in the toilet also seems unimportant.
I removed reference to evidence being "Low Copy Number" and some experts finding this unreliable. Neither claim seems to be made in the sourcing provided (the phrase "Low Copy Number" is nowhere). The sourcing does seem to support an alternative claim that a group of American scientists have raised concerns that evidence may have been contaminated, so I have included this instead. Hopefully, pro-Knox people will be happy with this, since it means a clearer and better-sourced statement in Knox's favour.
I removed the claim that unidentified DNA had been found on the victim's bra. This was presented as fact, but it is clear from the sourcing that this is speculation made by Sollecito's lawyers a year before trial, and it does not appear to be supported by the Massei report.
I added the fact that the court has ordered a review of scientific evidence.

Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the stuff about where Guede's DNA wasn't found may date back to a time when a couple of editors were trying to put stuff into the article promoting a "lone wolf" theory. As far as I recall, the theory was that Guede approached the house across the muddy garden without leaving a footprint; climbed up the wall to the bedroom window without leaving a mark on the wall; opened the wooden shutters; climbed down again without leaving marks or footprints; chucked a stone through the window; climbed up again (without...) and got through the window without disturbing the glass on the windowsill; ransacked the bedroom without leaving a trace of DNA; etc, etc. For our purposes, the improbability of this is not really the issue: of more import is the fact that the police and all the courts who have examined the evidence have thrown this theory out. So I'm assuming that this theory no longer has any legs and we need neither to expound the theory, nor to draw attention to the obvious lack of evidence to support it, which the courts highlighted. I think there were also attempts to say things like Guede's DNA was "all over the crime scene" when, in fact, only a few traces were found. Bluewave (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The statement "Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat" should be changed to "Luminol revealed footprints in the flat". The "made in blood" claim is not supported by the sources. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The next line in the article "Knox's DNA was found mixed with Kercher's blood in the footprints and elsewhere in the apartment." also has a problem. The reference does not say anything about the mixed DNA being found in footprints. --Footwarrior (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Made in blood" does appear to be supported, although it is at the top of p 372 ("...per verosimile deposizione di sostanza ematica..." = "..in all likelihood made in blood..."), so the reference should be changed to read 372-3. You are right about the Daily Beast source, though. It does support mixed blood elsewhere in the flat, but we could remove the words "in the footprints and". --FormerIP (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Made in blood" needs to be qualified with words that indicate it's not absolutely certain. The article should also state where the mixed DNA samples were found. --Footwarrior (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reason for wanting to specify where (eg will it significantly help the reader to understand the circumstances?). Reason I ask is that it looks to have been another flatmate's room, so WP:BLPNAME is an issue.

On qualifying the blood reference, maybe we can add the word "probably"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "probably" I think "most likely" would be a better a more precise attribution as luminol usually reveals blood traces.TMCk (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I added a {{Failed verification|date=January 2011}} at the trial section here which is also related to this talk section.TMCk (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Time of arrival of Postal Police

Disputed section was removed in whole from the article. Any future comments/suggestions should be made in a new section, preferable with a link to this closed discussion. TMCk (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

Diff of removal of edit in question: [3]. Perma-link to this discussion: [4]

I backed out several versions to restore the defense position on the time of arrival of the postal police. The reference does indeed support the text removed from the article. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see below. Per WP:NOENG, you need to provide the original text and its translation. As previously discussed, I don't believe this source supports the wording you would like it to, but in any event you have the burden of evidence here. --FormerIP (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A translation was provided in the earlier discussion.--Footwarrior (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because I provided it. You still have the burden of evidence to show that it supports the wording you would like to see included. --FormerIP (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

This text and the supporting reference were discussed at length a few months ago when this text was added. See Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_26#Time_of_postal_police_arrival. The burden of proof was met at that time. You didn't like the decision and tried several other tactics to get it removed without success. At this point, you are simply opening up an edit war. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is clear in supporting a reference to the time that the postal police arrived (12:58). Whether it is a reliable source, and whether the court definitively ruled on this fact are other matters (about which I have no opinion yet)63.209.178.11 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevant sentence in the source is: "Solo durante il processo in corso la difesa di Raffaele riesce a dimostrare inequivocabilmente che quell'orologio registra, si, un orario sbagliato, ma di piu di 10 minuti indietro e non avanti, quindi gli orari predetti vanno corretti, aggiungendo almeno 10 minuti e non sottraendo 10 minuti: la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58." Would you care to explain how, in your opinion, this can possibly be translated into English in a way that would support the text proposed? --FormerIP (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58."63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, as a procedural matter, the text should remain until ~~removed~~ consensus is reached to remove it. This is the second time I've seen people on this board remove long-standing parts of the article and then, when an objection is raised, refused to allow it to remain as part of the article until a consensus is built to make the change. It's not only against WP: policy, it's rude.63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not a correct description of WP procedure, 63.209.178.11. (Although, you have to admit, the text did remain until it was removed ;)).

Why do you think we should focus on the phrase "la Polizia Postale arriva effettivamente sul posto non prima delle ore 12,58" and not on the phrase "Il loro reale arrivo viene ripreso dalla videocamera alle ore 12,48"? It's 12:48 that "evidence from a security camera showed", according to the article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple. The statement regarding 12:58 is the statement by the paper of the actual time, while the statement regarding the 12:48 statement is a fact that led to the conclusion that the actual time was 12.58. This seems noncontroversial to me (at least regarding the intent of the article).63.209.178.11 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed correct procedure for 2 reasons. Firstly, and generally, you would be bold and change something. If there is disagreement, the change should be reverted and the edit discussed. This is the foundation of WP editing. While things get more complex in a BLP, none of those concern apply here, or in the earlier case. Even you said: "In terms of following procedure, the thing to look at is WP:BRD." That article clearly indicates the process I summarize above.63.209.178.11 (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, this language was the result of a long negotiation, which has been linked above. Consensus can change over time, but one or two editors shouldn't change it willy-nilly without the matter being discussed again. Otherwise, what was the point of going through the extended time to reach the last consensus?63.209.178.11 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No consensus was reached last time round, 63.209.178.11. The page was fully-protected with Footwarrior's version in place. I'd be more interested in hearing your arguments concerning the source, though. --FormerIP (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was reading the last discussions incorrectly. I saw a long disagreement about this, and that the end result was that the language stayed. Was there an edit war on this issue which led to the article being protected? Why did the language remain for so long after the article was unprotected?63.209.178.11 (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It was locked for a long time and, to be honest, I only just noticed that the phrase was still there. On the general issue of whether it should be in or out for now, see Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content. Do you have anything to say about the source, though? --FormerIP (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this isn't a BLP (though, admittedly, there are BLP considerations here) and there are no "good faith BLP objections". The disputed content has nothing to do with Kercher's biographical information. It is merely a dispute on the inclusion of a specific fact...a fact which doesn't appear to be in dispute. Does anyone currently claim that what this article states is fact is actually incorrect? (see my response to the source comments above...I'm trying to keep procedural discussions separate from content ones).63.209.178.11 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the discussion in chronological order if it's okay.

You should probably familiarise yourself with policy before trying to argue based on it. BLP does not just apply to articles which are biographies. It applies wherever there is information relating to living people. In this case the question is about what time it was when two living people did a certain thing. The BLP concern is actually quite significant, because if the time actually was 12:58, it would mean that a group of identifiable Italian police officers must have conspired to fabricate evidence and then lied under oath.

The journalist in this source is writing for a tiny Italian freesheet distributed in Sollecito's home town. He offers 12:58 as a speculation. His reason for this is the possibility that the CCTV clock was ten minutes slow. He seems to be offering this as a possibility because of the existence of evidence that it was ten minutes fast. He's saying: "if it was ten minutes fast, it could just as easily have been ten minutes slow, which would make the time 12:58". That's obviously a weak argument, since the point is that there is no reason to suppose it might have been slow. Regardless of that though, the point is that it's just speculation in a non-notable press article.

I don't see why this needs explaining - it's all there in plain Italian. --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 63.209... here. I have remained civil and I would appreciate it if you did as well. It does not help your argument to insult me or to be condescending. I understand the BLP policy very well. I had already conceded that there are BLP concerns in this article, so your explanation is not helpful. Especially as you have no reason to believe that this specific fact brings up a BLP concern. We have a newspaper which stated as fact something that corroborates what the person stated was a fact. Can you point me to any sources which were dated after this article which back up a differing point of view? Your speculation about what the meaning of a 12:58 time means is implausible rather irrelevant to this conversation.

Also, I have not stated an opinion on whether this is a reliable source, so I don't know why you're arguing this as if it hurts what I'm saying.

On the Italian, I'm just shocked that you are making this argument. Maybe the newspaper is wrong. Maybe it is biased. Maybe it makes ridiculous speculation. But it says that the 12:58 time is the earliest possible correct one.LedRush (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, if you (meaning FormerIP had actually followed WP procedure and acted civilly, we'd probably have moved on from this topic and actually discussed the quality of the citation and the source. I have not looked into this much, but I strongly suspect that the paper is not a RS. Footwarrior, do you have any evidence that the source is a reliable one?LedRush (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I've been uncivil, LedRush. Posing as a newbie may be questionable, but I'll let it pass. I think you're arguing on the basis of policy you don't appear to understand and a source written in a language you don't appear to understand.

The implication of the 12:58 time is that police officers lied under oath. That is a serious BLP concern. I invite you to self-revert.

What you're not understanding is what the source actually says. It says three things that appear to be relevant here. (1) The time on the footage was 12:48; (2) the police received information that the clock on camera was ten minutes fast (ie the time was actually 12:38); (3) perhaps Sollecito's lawyers will be able to argue that it was ten minutes slow (ie the time was actually 12:58). Sollecito's lawyers don't appear to have made such an argument (at least we have no evidence that they did) and if they did it doesn't appear to have been successful.

This is clearly not a good source for "evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did". It doesn't say that the evidence from a security camera shows this and it doesn't say anything about anything said by Sollecito. If it were an RS, it would be a good source for something like "A local journalist from Sollecito's hometown speculated that Sollecito's lawyers might be able to argue that the police arrived at the flat at 12:58 (but in the end they didn't)." --FormerIP (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You were insulting and condescending to me regarding my knowledge of WP policy (and about my arguments). You've gone further to accuse me of some kind of deception, which I obviously have not committed. I stated that I was new to this article/subject, but I am obviously not new to WP, nor have I ever indicated otherwise.

I think understand what you're saying about the Italian article. They are taking some information that they found and reaching a conclusion themselves. However, that seems almost like you are projecting WP standards on them. They make a definitive statement that the police could not have come before 12:58. I don't know if they are right or not, but that's what it says. If no one else agrees with it, why don't you just get another source dated after this article that says otherwise? Or stick with the RS issues, which seems like a winner to me. However, I would want to hear what footwarrior says to that before I crystalize my opinion.LedRush (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel I've been insulting and condescending. You appear to have reverted my edit in advance of understanding why the edit has been made, though, which doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by "projecting WP standards" on them. Is that not what we are supposed to do? The source doesn't make a definitive statement at all. It speculates that something might be provable. It doesn't even go as far as "taking some information that they found and reaching a conclusion themselves". They appear to reach the conclusion merely on the grounds that anything is possible. That is not grounds for us to state it as fact. It is particularly not grounds for us to say "evidence from a security camera showed..." when the source explicitly states that it showed something else entirely. --FormerIP (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The source is a local newspaper that publishes regularly and has a editorial board. It meets the WP:RS guidelines for such sources. I notice that the text "just as Sollecito said they did" was changed, but the new text implies Sollecito gave an exact time for the postal police arrival. Something like "after the 112 call" would be more appropriate. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit because WP policy is to keep an established edit until consensus is reached on the talk page. I have explained this clearly above. Also, just because I don't agree with your edit doesn't mean that I don't understand it. Also, if people make edits that which are bad, are we to keep them because we don't understand what motivated such a bad edit? Simple decency, and WP policy, dictates not changing long established language until discussion has been had.LedRush (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

My reading of Italian is not good enough to comment in detail on the meaning of the source, but I don't see how it can support the claim that "evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did" when it actually says that the time on the camera was 12:48. This source was once referred to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for comment. Did anything come of that? Bluewave (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for other sources on this. The Micheli report certainly concludes that Sollecito made the call to 112 after the postal police had arrived, not before. I can't find anything in the Massei report. Google brings up any amount of stuff on both sides, but largely from totally unreliable sources (mostly blogs). This source[5] says the call was made after the police had arrived, but it was very early on in the history of the case. This[6] mentions the prosecution and defence versions but does not give the evidence to support either. This[7] purports to be Sollecito's statement to the police, in which he says "She told me to call 121 but in the meantime the postal police arrived". I think we have conflicting sources relating to this point. Unless anyone can find anything more definitive, I suggest the wording needs to reflect the various versions. Bluewave (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. You'd think that on a point like this there would be more definitive statements. Perhaps we could include something like this: "There are conflicting reports concerning whether Sollicito called the postal police before or after they arrived at Kercher's apartment. Some sources, like La Piazza [fill in newspaper] claim that a review of the evidence indicates that Sollicito made the phone call before the police arrived, while other sources, like the Micheli report, conclude that the call was made after they arrived."LedRush (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Mecheli report was written before this evidence was presented by Sollecito's defense. The Massei report makes a rather odd comment "he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen", that indicates the judge didn't really accept their stated time of arrival (see pg. 27 of PMF translation). Solleceto's lawyers used cell phone records to prove the camera clock is 10 minutes slow. The postal police are seen arriving at 12:48 camera time, hence they arrived at 12:58 real time. Other sources for this information exist, including the slideshow used in court, but they are not suitable for a Wikipedia reference. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would it not be suitable? We are not a trier of fact, here. We merely report what reliable sources say in as neutral a manner as possible. Surely if there has been a later and definitive answer to this question, we should be able to get a RS for it, no?LedRush (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Sollecito's lawyers indeed prove that the camera clock is 10 minutes slow? I know they tried to prove that, but I've not seen a source that says their evidence was convincing or that it was accepted by the court. Bluewave (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Also, Footwarrior, are you suggesting that, when Massei says that they arrived "at a little after 12:30 pm", he meant 12.58 pm? Bluewave (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, we are not triers of fact, so it wouldn't really matter if the court didn't make a definitive ruling on that (of course, if they did we could include such a ruling). If the Italian paper was a RS, we can include that. If there is a RS for (or a direct cite to) the Massei report, we can include that, too.LedRush (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The article text gives the arguments on both sides, not which argument was accepted by the court. As for other sources, the problem is finding one that meets the WP:RS criteria. (Self published blogs don't count, but strangely enough if the blogger writes a book it does.) Few publications covered the defense case in this trial. This newspaper from Solliceto's home town and the Italian newsmagazine Oggi seem to be the exceptions. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that the present text gives the arguments on both sides. It starts with "the police officers testified that they had arrived at 12:35 pm, before Sollecito called 112" but "evidence from a security camera showed that the police arrived at 12:58 pm, just as Sollecito said they did". The current wording surely implies that the evidence about the security camera is fact and the evidence of the police officers isn't. The part that says "just as Sollecito said they did" is simply making a point and is not supported by the sources. I don't believe Sollecito has ever stated a time at which the police arrived. By saying that the evidence "showed that", we are implying that the evidence was accepted as fact. You could equally, rephrase the whole thing as "the defence produced evidence from a security camera in an attempt to show that the police arrived at 12:58 pm. However, the the police officers staunchly testified that they had arrived at 12:35 pm, before Sollecito called 112". I think both this version and the current text are inappropriate because they clearly imply that either defence or prosecution won the point. And we have not found a source that supports that. Bluewave (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Bluewave (pending new sources). What do you think of the general thrust of my suggestion?LedRush (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that, if we have conflicting sources, we should reflect both points of view in the article. I'm not entirely happy with using the Italian paper and the Micheli report as the two quoted sources in the way that you suggest, though. A minor provincial newspaper written after the defence case was known versus an official court report written before it was known are a bit chalk and cheese. But yes I broadly agree with what you're suggesting. I'd be interested to get FormerIP's view too, seeing as he clearly has strong views on this subject. Bluewave (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would try to include text about the officers stopping to ask directions, because the cottage had an address as being on street "Via della Pergola" but is phyically located on "Via San Antonio" or such, to help readers understand why the arrival time might be longer than a quick trip across Perugia. "God is in the details" of this case, to help people understand what the sources state happened that weekend, after Meredith and Amanda had phoned each other about their Halloween costumes. Remember: "Wikipedia is not paper" - there is space to add more details to help readers understand. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows that the officers did stop to ask for directions? Even if they did, how is this relevant? It will not change the time recorded on the CCTV footage or the logged time of the 112 call. pablo 07:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This ought not to be difficult. We do have reliable sources that say: a) the Micheli report concluded that the police arrived at the flat at about 12.35, agreeing with their testimony (Micheli report); b) CCTV footage showing the time of arrival was timestamped 12:48 (P di G); c) trial evidence showed that the time on the CCTV was about ten minutes fast (P di G); d) a minor journalist from Sollecito's home town wondered if it might be possible to show that the CCTV clock was actually ten minutes slow. We do not have reliable sources that say a) that evidence from a security camera showed the time to be 12:58; b) that Raffael Sollecito ever claimed that the time was 12:58; c) that anybody other than a minor journalist from Sollecito's home town has ever raised the possibility that the time might have been 12:58. Our article currently reflects only the facts from the do not list. Therefore, we need to change it so that it reflects facts from the do list. --FormerIP (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Micheli report is from the trial of Rudy Guede, not the trial of Knox and Sollecito. The legal case for the later two defendants was presented in a separate trail. That case included a refutation of the claim that Sollecito calledl the Italian emergency number after the arrival of the Postal Police. The details of that argument are explained in an Italian newspaper (the reference for text recently removed by FormerIP), and a pdf of the presentation used in court can be found at [8]. A security camera recorded the arrival of the Postal Police and the later arrival of the Carabinieri. The Carabinieri had trouble finding the cottage and called Knox's cell phone. She turned her phone over to one of the Postal Police officers who talked them in. That call ended when the Carabinieri arrived. Comparing the phone records for that call with the arrival time shown by the security camera proves the camera clock is ten minutes fast, not ten minutes show. Therefore the Postal Police arrived at 12:58. The Massei report page 15 (pg. 27 of PMF translation) states "These then are the preceding facts and the reason for the presence at the house at 7 Via della Pergola shortly before 1:00 pm on November 2, 2009 of the Postal Police team consisting of Inspector Michele Battistelli and Assistant Fabio Marzi." A bit later on that same page "he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen." indicates the court didn't accept the policeman's timing. What we don't find in the Massei report is any statement that the call to 112 happened after the arrival of the Postal Police. --Footwarrior (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

None of which explains why the article ought to contain claims which are not contained in any reliable source. --FormerIP (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored the statement and the source, rewording it for clarity and NPOV. Rejecting your contention that the Italian newspaper is not a WP:RS. When you brought this issue up on the Reliable Sources noticeboard back in September, it failed to gather any support for your contention that this newspaper was not a reliable source. --Footwarrior (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

But is it not the case that, regardless of the reliability of the publication, the article is speculating about a way that the defence may have presented its evidence? pablo 21:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not only that, but the specifics of the new proposal "The defence also presented evidence from a security camera and cell phone records indicating the police arrived at 12:58, after the call to 112" are explicitly contradicted by the source given. The source explicitly states that the evidence in question was presented by the prosecution, not the defence; there is no mention of phone records; it is explicitly that the evidence that is talked about indicated a time of 12:48 or 12:38 taking into account other evidence. There is no mention of it indicating 12:58, only a possibility that this might be proven in some unspecified way at some point in the future.

I've created a new section here Wikipedia:NOR/N#Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher, which I fully expect to be bombarded by SPAs at any moment. --FormerIP (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, WP rewards an edit warring by locking an article after an editor made edits against WP policy and against common courtesy.LedRush (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any objection to removing the entire paragraph starting with "At trial, the police officers stated"? --Footwarrior (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Good call. No, I wouldn't object to that if no-one else does. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that too. I think the only reason to include the arrival time of the postal police is if it indicates that Sollecito definitely called 112 either before or after their arrival. From the sources, I don't think we can say with certainty whether it was before or after. So this ceases to be notable. Bluewave (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections to this, shall I make the change? I could also unprotect the article then, as this is the locus of the dispute. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and make the edit. Page protection will expire in a couple of days.

In section "Events surrounding the murder" remove the entire paragraph starting with "At trial, the police officers stated" --Footwarrior (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Done Black Kite (t) (c) 15:27, 4 January 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.

Events surrounding the murder

I've gone through this section as I did above with another section. Mostly uncontroversial copyediting, but once again there are couple of things worthy of flagging:

I removed discussion of the admissability of statements made to police by Knox. Think the info was probably more-or-less correct, but it was not well sourced - only a reference to a court document in Italian was given, which clearly can't have contained the whole story. Secondary sourced are needed for this.
I removed reference to CCTC showing a time of 11:58. This is not supported by the source given. Footwarrior: since this source is in Italian, the onus is on you to show that the wording in it does support the wording you wish to see inserted, per WP:NOENG.
Changed references to "phones carried by Kercher" to "Kercher's phones". But maybe they were not hers (?).

--FormerIP (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the phones belonged to Kercher, the other to an Italian flatmate. The wording "phones carried by Kercher" was chosen to avoid unnecessary detail and still be technically correct. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking this section again, I noticed that the referenced source doesn't support the claim of a flatmate returning around 1 PM or her saying nothing had been stolen. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've amended that sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I'm unhappy about the current state of this article. It gives Amanda Knox too little weight compared to how well-known she is. It's easy to argue that Amanda Knox is way more well-known than the murder victim, most coverage has focused on Knox. Her fate is currently being turned into a film titled The Amanda Knox Story starring Hayden Panettiere as Knox[9]. Knox probably warrants her own article. Cawalt (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I notice that Knox' date of birth isn't even included. She is arguably a major subject of this article and probably should have her own biography. She was born on July 9, 1987 in Seattle. Cawalt (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, as a new user, you need to read the section further up the page titled "Amanda Knox". All the best, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Cawalt (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cawalt, you are 100% correct. While you may want to look at the discussions above, don't let people bully you into believing that the current status of the article (or lack thereof) cannot change.LedRush (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cawalt, that film is no longer known as ~~The Amanda Knox Story~~, it has been retitled to Via Della Rosa, and is being billed as "...Based on the events surrounding the murder of British student Meredith Kercher...". While Knox certainly will be a character, it is no longer likely that just her fate and her fate alone that will be the focus of the film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1783413/ Jonathan (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Which, of course, changes no part of the underlying argument.LedRush (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ and second Jonathancjudd's comment as the movie's title change might be an indication of shifting the focus to Kercher and the case surrounding here. Anyhow, we won't know for sure either way until it's been released and therefore should not jump premature to any kind of conclusions either way for what is still in the future and thus a dead horse for now.TMCk (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas, that doesn't change the underlying argument at all. It merely changes the status of one of the dozens of pieces of supporting evidence from "apparent on its face" to "we'll have to wait and see to be sure, but almost definitely still supporting evidence". Even if the movie got cancelled, the underlying argument remains, but one piece of supporting evidence would be missing.LedRush (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Protected

Just to stop any incipient edit-war, I think that was enough reverts. Please discuss the issue of the disputed source at the talk page and/or the RSN page. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your actions have rewarded FormerIP for engaging in an edit war despite repeated warnings.LedRush (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It takes two (or more) to edit war. Also - I protected the wrong version? Surely not. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't thing being rude makes you any less wrong.LedRush (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not wrong - and I'm not being rude either. I'm pointing out - hopefully in a humourous manner - that protecting a page is always unacceptable to ... someone. I could've waited until you'd reverted again, and then had FormerIP complain that I was helping you edit war. There is very rarely a Right Version^TM in an edit war - when admins protect a page, they cannot take into account what state it is in (unless that version has seriously problematic issues, i.e. BLP violations). Incidentally, if that edit war starts again without being thrashed out on the talk pages, I will re-protect the article without a second's thought. We had reached a point a short while ago where editing was collegial here - it is now starting not to be again, and if the answer to that is protection, then so be it. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You were wrong because you have rewarded FormerIPs bad actions. One version (clearly not "right" - and I've never claimed it to be so) was the result of much negotiation and compromise. FormerIP has unilaterally made changes to these compromise positions. I understand that consensus changes, and not everything in the article always belongs there, but procedurally, especially with such a contentious article, it is better to discuss the changes first and then to make the changes (or, make the changes boldly, and then, after reversion, try to address the criticisms through the talk page or through subsequent revisions in a less contentious article). Your humor is rude because it belittles this point and misstates my criticism of your actions.LedRush (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are talking about the section above entitled "Time of arrival of Postal Police", then it is clear there is no consensus about what that section should contain. Now I agree that FormerIP should not have responded to that alteration by edit-warring, but neither should you and Footwarrior - once your edit was reverted, you should have come back to this talkpage. Thus, your criticism is unfounded - if there was a consensus on the talkpage, then you might have a point - but there wasn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that the actual edit in dispute supported by LedRush was still in place when the article was protected which makes it a stretch to call it "in favor of FormerIP" and I'm pleased to see that the disputed part is now gone together with the triggering one in which I was a silent proponent for. Kudos to Footwarrior for his proposal.TMCk (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox

NO ACTION

No further insight can be gained here, in particular considering the increasingly personalized nature of the debate. Editors who believe they have sufficient material to write a neutral article that overcomes the consensus demonstrated last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox require no authorization from participants on this specific talk page and may want to direct their energies into creating an appropriate userspace draft before submitting a request for recreation at WP:DRV, where the wider community will be able to confirm whether the many examples and counter examples cited in this long debate represent exceptions or the current community norm. MLauba ^(Talk) 00:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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.

Shouldn't there be a separate article on Ms. Knox? It seems to me that the story has moved away from the murder and is largely about Amanda Knox these days. A reading of the article, for example, shows that a hefty chunk of it is about her. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the PR campaign, I'd like to understand how the argument for a spin-off for Knox doesn't also apply to a spin-off for her co-defendant. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, looking at the article, and taking a purely real estate approach to this thing, I see that two sections (8 and 9) are almost entirely about Knox. Two and a half of the six books listed in section 10.1 feature her in the title (two feature mainly her). Three of the four documentaries seem to be about her. (Disclosure: I haven't see any documentaries nor read any books about the case or Ms. Knox. Most of my information about the case comes from this article.) Section 7 seems almost entirely about Ms. Knox. The other defendant (or murderer perhaps, since they have both been convicted) doesn't seem to get remotely the same amount of coverage. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "The other convict..."? Anyhow, please avoid the use of honourific prefixes such as "Ms." in WP. Fullname on first mention, surname or pronoun subsequently as suitable. See wp:HONORIFIC and wp:SURNAME. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I try, often unsuccessfully as I note I did in this article, not to do so in articles. However, MOS is a guideline for articles, not talk pages. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see it's already fixed in the article.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm unsure how you'd prove that Knox is notable outside the confines of this incident; two previous AfDs - at a time when interest in the case was much higher - have agreed that she isn't and I can't see that much has changed since. Perhaps the issue is more that the amount of detail about Knox in this article is too high? Black Kite (t) (c) 20:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That could be the case. The bottom half about the article appears to be mostly about Knox. If there is a general feeling that she is insufficiently notable, then perhaps the stuff that doesn't directly pertain to the murder (the recent indictment, some of the detail in the media section, for example) could be trimmed. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Amanda Knox is a classic WP:BLP1E. She is notable only for this murder, and the trials surrounding it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Smart rose to notability solely as a result of being kidnapped and the ensuring legal issues which surround it. Surely she would have not become a well-known figure as she has, were it not for that. The only difference between Ms. Smart and Amanda Knox is that the bias on this wiki currently agrees that Ms. Knox is a perp, not a victim. However, it seems to me that there are enough reliable soruces reporting on the AK situation to call into doubt the validity of her conviction. And while we need not ourselves agree she's been wrongly convicted, we certainly owe the public the opportunity to understand that there is much in the media offering that she has been. AK's notability now centers around the peculiar nature of the Italian justice system and the apparent efforts by the prosecutors to save face. My personal view is that the theory of the case was absurd on its face and the case against Ms. Knox wasn't actually proved - and it seems that there's many notables in the media who have come to the same conclusion. Surely, if we deny AK her own page, we deny our readers a chance to understand this story more clearly. Most people do not know about the intracies and peculiarities of trials and appeals in Italy and that's what the Amanada Knox story has always been about. That Meredith Kercher has been murdered is not disputed. That Amanda Knox currently stands convicted of that is not in dispute. What is, however, in dispute in the media are the peculiarities of this particular trial - as it illustrates the peculiarities of Italian criminal law. The saga of Amanda Knox has indeed taken on a life of its own and to deny that is to deny reality. We need not jump on any pro-Amanda bandwagon, but we do need an Amanda Knox page to tell the whole story of the twists and turns of her saga, guilty or not. Read this, this, this and this 98.118.62.140 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

re "bias on this wiki currently agrees that Ms. Knox is a perp, not a victim" - I don't think that there is evidence of any such bias. That she was tried and convicted of a crime is a matter of fact, however. It is right that the verdict is recorded here. I disagree that the "saga of Amanda Knox has indeed taken on a life of its own", if by that you mean a life independent of the murder of Meredith Kercher. pablo 17:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that I just saw an advertisement for a book on Amanda Knox. I went to Wikipedia to learn more about her. Unfortunately, I got redirected here and I can't learn anything about her here. By not having an article on her, Wikipedia simply isn't doing for readers what it's supposed to.63.209.178.11 (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your expectations of what Wikipedia is supposed to do are wrong. It hasn't prevented you from doing your shopping, has it? pablo 16:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think your attempt at humor is stupid. I saw a book on a topic that was interesting, and wanted to learn more about his public figure who has received an astronomical amount of media attention. Wikipedia provided me with almost no encyclopedic information about this public figure. If you could answer this point without being a douche, I would appreciate it.63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok I'll try. I think your expectations of what Wikipedia is supposed to do are wrong. There is enough information in the article for you to work out why Amanda Knox has attracted media attention. We call these 'facts'. If you wish to know more about the person, you could always either actually buy the book you speak of (although it may be inaccurate or opinionated) or write to her in the nick (although she may not write back). The address is available on the internet and is not hard to find. pablo 20:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, your response is more direct, but no less douchey. In summary, I believe that Wikipedia should provide encyclopedic content on famous and notable public figures. You believe that Wikipedia is for being a jerk and distoring other people's viewpoints. Perhaps you have other views in addition, but it's hard to read through your sarcasm and insults.63.209.178.11 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable, yes. Famous, not necessarily. I have never distored anyone's viewpoint; not once. I wouldn't know how. pablo 22:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

She is undeniably famous. Just below there is an article written by Kercher's father bemoaning that Knox is a celebrity and that her parents are afforded celebrity status as well. Heck, Hayden Panettiere is starring in a film called the "Amanda Knox Story".

BTW, you are excellent at distorting other people's views. Your false modesty doesn't hide your past statements.63.209.178.11 (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I wrote "Notable, yes. Famous, not necessarily" as a reply to your assertion that "... Wikipedia should provide encyclopedic content on famous and notable public figures." This was intended to be read as "I agree that WP should provide encyclopedic content on notable public figures, but this is not necessarily the case for famous public figures." This is in fact policy. Hence people who are 'famous' for one event are generally redirected to an article about the event itself, which is usually more 'famous' than they are.
I would appreciate it if you would either a) stop accusing me of distorting other people's views, or b) provide a specific example from my "past statements" which shows exactly how excellent I am at doing this. pablo 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand any argument that the subject of numerous books, articles, and even some tv shows/movies is somehow not notable. It is clearly possible for someone whose notablility was based on a single incident to become notable individually and separate of that incident. While I understand that other stuff exists, it is shocking to me that people don't see an Amanda Knox article as something that would be helpful to readers or add to the encyclopedic value of this site. One time actors, one hit wonders, one time criminals, and one time authors all have no trouble getting their own pages here, but this is resisted. While I try to assume good faith, I suspect that this is more of an attempt to contain the pro-Knox crazies and control the story than it is to conform to any wikipedia policy.

Regarding your distortions of my views: these are easily viewable on this thread. You were also sarcastic, rude, and insulting, but I don't know if it does any good to rehash this. However, I do appreciate that in your last post you have at least tried to remain civil. For that I thank you.63.209.178.11 (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that Amanda Knox has done anything independently of her connection with his murder that deserves a Wikipedia article, then I'm afraid I disagree. If you want to know more about her, there are whole websites devoted to her. There isn't anything, independent of this murder case, to fill an 'Amanda Knox' article. Not yet, anyway. There are many "pro-Knox crazies" as you put it, around, and avoiding bias has been difficult with this article. But I don't accept that it's about "controlling the story". It's more about making sure that the story is accurate.
sarcastic, rude and insulting - possibly. Distort your point of view? No. pablo 00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this below and end the topic regarding your behaviour.63.209.178.11 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the aggro here for? 63.209.178.11, I think the flaw in what you're saying is that surely if someone wants to find out about Amanda Knox this amounts to them wanting to find out about this murder case, including, broadly, pretty much all of the information in this article (unless some of our information is uninteresting or wrong, but that's another matter). If someone wanted to know about Amanda Knox but wanted this without information about the murder case, then I think I would find that unusual, and I'm not sure it's the type of thing Wikipedia is designed to cater for. Also, you might not realise this, but if someone types in "Amanda Knox" they get redirected to this article, so it's not like we're making the info harder to find. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making a polite, cogent response. I think your assumption regarding the viewers is wrong (well, it is in my case, anyway)(i.e. there are people who want to learn more about Amanda Knox that don't want to find out all about this murder case.) I wanted to learn more about Amanda Knox and was redirected to this article. The information in this article is not organized (nor should it be) in a manner that allows me to easily learn about Knox, nor does it contain information that I would expect to be able to find out about her. There is huge amount of information here that is notable that is being ignored because it doesn't fit into an article about the murder of Meredith Kercher.63.209.178.11 (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to address the contention that preventing an article about Knox is about ensuring the story is accurate. This does not withstand logical scrutiny (nor the smell test, for that matter). More information on a subject, if presented honestly and fairly, can never make a story less accurate. An article on Knox would be subject to BLP requirements and normal Wikipedia protocols to ensure that her story, as well as the story of the murder of Kercher, is accurate. No argument can be made that an article on Knox is opposed because of concern about the accuracy of the story (which story?) unless you assume that a Knox article would itself be inaccurate.

Now, onto whether Knox deserves her own article. Let's look at the language of the policy. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."

There are two elements here (one with two parts) that must be satisfied in order for a person not to be justified in having his/her own article. 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual.

Element One: Single Event

It would take an incredibly narrow definition of "one event" to have Amanda Know fall under that Wikipedia category. Such a narrow definition, as I have noted above, would exclude huge numbers of artists, musicians, authors, actors and , yes, criminals, who already have pages devoted to them.

Knox is covered by reliable sources in association with many activities. She is covered for the many lawsuits in which she is involved. She is covered as an example of Italian jurisprudence. She is covered as an example of controversy. She is covered as the subject of a movie based solely around her life (not her role in the murder, her life). She gives interviews, as do her parents, and she is covered in this context.

Element Two: Low Profile

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

Therefore, even though I feel that I have proved that Knox is famous not solely based on one event, such a conclusion is not necessary to find that Knox deserves her own article. One would merely need to find that she is not (or likely not to remail) a low profile individual. With the amount of interviews, books, TV shows and other media attention on her, Knox is clearly not a low profile individual. 63.209.178.11 (talk) 15:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of the policy considerations, looking at this pragmatically, what would go into an Amanda Knox article? The only sources that I have read about her (though others may have read more widely) consist of material that I would categorise as follows:

Material to do with the murder, investigation and subsequent court proceedings. Actually, most of the books with Knox's name in the title (as far as I've seen) are in reality mostly about this stuff. I would bet money that the movie that is supposedly about her will, in reality, be mostly about the events surrounding the murder and arising from the murder. I would argue that this stuff is best covered in the murder article and we will just create problems for ourselves if we try and cover it again in another article.
Stuff about Knox's family background and education. I have not seen anything particularly notable in this. If there was, I'm surprised no-one has ever added it to the brief biography section in the present article.
Stuff about Knox's sex life, drug habits and the like. This has been much covered in newspapers, certainly in the UK, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to an encyclopedia.

So what is there, that is missing from the murder article and requires the development of a new Amanda Knox article to accommodate it? Bluewave (talk) 18:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that an Amanda Knox article would be similar to the biographies which currently exist about her in books and tv shows/movies. While I am just learning about her now, I would guess the article would go something like this:

Lede
Early Life, education, etc. (your comment about putting this into the murder article seems strange...why would you do that? This is an article about the murder, not the individuals. And the idea that this section itself needs to be notable enough to be included in an unrelated article about a murder is also strange. The subject needs be notable. Even if the school she went to isn't, it becomes part of a normal encyclopedia entry. Otherwise Wikipedia would hardly ever include education information at all.)
Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the first half of this article.
Appeals and other Court Cases. Self explanatory.
Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press.
Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.
Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.

There is enough here for a very meaty article, and certainly an article more substantive than many, many other ones on Wikipedia (yes, yes, other stuff exists). Most importantly, the early life and portrayal in popular culture sections are wholly inappropriate for the current article, and the public reaction and media sections cannot be fleshed out as much in this article as they could be in a Knox article for various reasons (not only because of WP: Undue, but because they would bog down the article and make it read worse). Seeing as there is a lot of content not available on wikipedia because it cannot (and should not) be shoe-horned into this article, and seeing as the information clearly does not trigger WP: One Event concerns, there is no reason not to have this article.63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

But why is she notable except for being convicted of a crime - a crime on which we already have a article? Most of the possible content above sounds more like a tabloid newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry, as well - given the hysterical media coverage in various places - as being a BLP nightmare. It would be best if any such article was created in userspace anyway, as previous consensus is clearly against such an article being stand-alone. (Also, it might be better to wait until the appeals are over - if her conviction is overturned, everything changes). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that she became notable because she committed a crime. Please see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Category:American_people_convicted_of_murder 63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that many of those shouldn't have articles. However, the problem is that previous attempts to create Knox articles have been single-minded attempts to "prove" her innocence or cast doubt on the convictions through hearsay and rumour. This has caused much disruption. I'm obviously not saying that is what you want to do, but given the previous history I do think that any possible article should be built in userspace first. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a Knox article shouldn't be used to change the story here, increase inaccuracy, or somehow "prove" anyone's innocence. Generally, I would disagree with your point about making the article in the user space first because I wouldn't have nearly enough information to create a coherent article on my own - I would build a base and try to direct it's creation. However, given that there has been an official WP proclaimation on this, and because of the purported past attempts to introduce a POV article, it would make sense for an article to first be created in a user space in this instance. One thing I don't like is the argument that we shouldn't make an article because it's hard. We should do what is best for the readers, and be vigilent to protect the article from POV pushers.63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

63.209.178.11: It seems to me that what your asking for is a new article containing the same information as this one but in a different order, plus additional information about one of the convicted parties' background (which could in principle go in this article if people felt it would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia). In other words, you're asking for a duplicate of this article. Which would serve no purpose, which is why it is against WP policy. Even in high-profile cases, where there are multiple people convicted of the same crime, Wikipedia will tend to cover the crime in a single article relating to the crime and the names of the perpetrators will generally be redirects (see, for example: Myra Hindley, Ian Huntley, Michael Barton, Jon Venables). If you think that's the wrong policy, you could start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or at Wikipedia:Village pump. If you think there is a a good reason to make an exception in this case, then you could launch a WP:RfC (but see previous community discussions here and here). I honestly don't think it's a good use of your time to carry on making your case here, because I don't think the editors who have commented are likely to change their minds. I would think about this before creating an article in userspace, because I don't think your chances of getting it transferred into mainspace will be good and you may end up just wasting your time. Although, I suppose, not a lot of time since you mainly just need to copy and paste from this article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it would seem that I am asking for a duplicate article. I am not. I am asking for what I asked for above. Also, your reading of WP policy is odd to say the least. I have given you tons of examples of people who are famous merely for having committed a crime, and they have their own pages, not redirects. The odd thing is that Knox is more famous than the vast majority of them. I am not asking for any exceptions to WP policy...again, please see above. I love how every time I argue that a cited policy doesn't fit the stated argument, people come up with new policies to quote.63.209.178.11 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

63.209.178.11, I don't believe I just quoted any policies at you, new or old. I also don't believe anyone has tried to claim that people who have committed a crime should never be the subject of an article. There are clearly lots of cases where this is appropriate. However, in cases such as this one, where multiple people have been convicted of the same crime and none of them are notable for anything not directly related to that crime, the standard interpretation of policy is that we treat the situation with one article rather than multiple articles covering the crime from the perspective of the various perpetrators.

The main thing is, though, you are not going to get any joy out of this discussion. No-one is likely to change their minds and even if someone new turns up who shares your view that will only mean that you have an extra person on your side of a pointless back-and-forth discussion repeating the same things over and over (this is what is already happening). If you are serious about wanting to challenge either policy or its application in this case, you need to go somewhere where you will get the attention of editors not previously involved on this talk page. Cheers. --FormerIP (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

While you didn't specifically quote a policy, you (incorrectly) indicated what WP policy is. Furthermore, your examples seem oddly chosen to me (or perhaps self selected). I've never heard of those crimes (probably because they are from the UK). However, in the first two examples I looked up ,the Manson Family and the DC Snipers, all the criminals each had their own articles. The next example, the Menendez Brothers, share one article that includes the information you would expect regarding an article on the murderers and not the actual crime.63.209.178.11 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Your point regarding the fruitfullness of this discussion is well taken. One of the problems is that people don't say the same things again and again...they change their arguments every single time a point is made that contradicts their view. I merely came here looking to correct an what I felt was an obvious oversight and assumed I could find an open and honest discussion.63.209.178.11 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough with your snide comments. It's not an oversight, it's been discussed, many times, it's being discussed now. Openly and honestly. If you have anything to say about the subject under discussion please go ahead. If you merely wish to snipe because you're not getting the response you're looking for, please go away. pablo 22:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be helpful if instead of inserting your vitriol without making any substantive additions to the argument at all, you confined yourself to my talk page. I have started a discussion on yours so that your disruptions to this conversation can be minimized. If you wish, you can remove both this comment and yours as of 22:04 15 Dec so that this page can be open for actual discussions.63.209.178.11 (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

63.209.178.11, thanks for answering my question (about what would go in an Amanda Knox article). You said some of the things I had said were strange...perhaps I should explain. One of my apparent strangenesses was the suggestion that Knox's early life and education might not be "notable". Perhaps I should have used the word "relevant" instead. Looking at other biographical articles, the amount of weight given to education and early years is really dependent on on how relevant these are to the notability of the subject. Picking a few random biographical articles, those on Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield and Edgar Speyer barely mention education and early years, which presumably had little bearing on their later careers. Conversely, Ronnie Lee Gardner and Antonin Scalia devote quite a bit to it, but clearly draw a connection between the early years and the subject's notability. In the case of Knox, I don't think there is much we could say about her early years that would be relevant to her notability. You also say that it is strange that I suggest putting information about Knox's early life and education into the murder article. Surely, an article about a murder might reasonably include a brief biography of those convicted. That is certainly the case in the Moors murders and Toa Payoh ritual murders articles, which don't look strange (actually they are featured articles). Bluewave (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments. I thought that it was strange that you would use the same standards for determining whether or not including Knox's early life/education in this article as you would use in an article based solely on her. It seems that you have backed off that position or that I had misunderstood your position.

If your point is that the amount of information about someone's early life/education should be generally proportional to the relevency of their later notability, I would generally agree (though many articles do not seem to follow this rule, like just about any article on any actor or musician). However, both Albert Stanley and Edgar Speyer have significant (if not overwhelming) details on their early life and education, and I would expect to have a similar amount for an article on Knox. In fact, I was not able to find any article (beyond stub articles) on a person which did not include at least some info on their early life/education (I'm sure they are out there, but you get my point). Furthermore, the history would tell us how Knox got the nickname Foxy Knoxy (which I had to look up elsewhere, and isn't for the reason you'd originally assume).63.209.178.11 (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to use only articles with "featured" status as examples, because they represent the highest quality standard. And based on an admittedly small sample there did seem to be a good correspondence between early life coverage and its relevance to notability. Regarding the origin of the Foxy Knoxy nickname, the Knox Family's PR company has been diligent in pushing one explanation for this. Meanwhile, tabloid newspapers have been favouring a very different explanation.[10] Faced with the choice of whether to trust the reliability of a PR company or a tabloid newspaper, I think the present article has made the right decision not to mention either explanation! Bluewave (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned, even the articles you mention have a good amount of early life/education info in them, which buttresses my point that an article on Knox would also contain some of this information.

I didn't mean to start a discussion of the "Foxy" nickname, and I don't know if the source you quoted is a reliable one, but the others definitely are. It is certainly possible (and I believe, based on nothing other than nicknaming habits of young people) that multiple people came up with this nickname for multiple reasons. But wouldn't the best response be to present the credible, reliably sourced information (on both/any side) rather than to say nothing and invite potential misunderstanding?63.209.178.11 (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since Pablo's 1st post on this thread was a reply to my comment and since 63's 1st post on this thread was a reply to Pablo's reply to me, I think I'm in a good position to reply to the entire thread. Frankly, I find it curious that nobody noticed that I referred to the Elizabeth Smart article to make my point. However, since I think it relevant, I ask everyone to look at that article. I chose the ES article to point out a situation where someone has a Wiki article as a consequence of merely being in the news for a limited reason. However, I think I should have chosen the Lori Berenson article as a better example as it's very close to what an Amanda Knox article should be like. Lori was not at all notable before her conviction, incarceration and lengthy appeals. In fact the Wiki article starts off with "Lori Helene Berenson (born November 13, 1969) is an American convicted in Peru of unlawful collaboration with the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement...". It's very clear that Lori's story took on a life of it's own in the media after her conviction and that's why she's notable - because the story surrounding her is notable. Similarly, I feel that Amanda's story has taken on a life of it's own and likewise warrants an article such as Lori's. Additionally, it's my view that Amanda's story, like Lori's, is essentially that of a political prisoner. To me, I see the case against Amanda as rife with cultural bias and anti-American bigotry and frankly, I think the prosecution's theory of the case could only be believed by someone who views Americans as wanton and lascivious. Similarly, I feel that Lori ultimately stayed in jail for many, many years owing to a local cultural bias that Americans are meddling Gringos who need to be shown the boot of justice. Now of course, each of us is free to conclude as we see fit, but I do feel that an Amanda Knox page is warranted at this point; if only to to give the full picture of her story and circumstances, as per how the Lori Berenson page does this. Had no media phenomenon have coalesced around Amanda's story, I'd say drop it. But it is true that her story has taken on a life of it's own and now is a notable one. Amanda Knox should have her own page. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point a bit, 98.118.62.140. There is no such rule as "people notable because of a crime do not get their own article", and I don't think anyone has tried to claim otherwise. However, where a person is notable because of one crime and they have no other claim to notability, normal practice is to cover the crime within one article (whatever the title of the article happens to be). Obviously, the degree of overlap if we had one article for the crime and one for the criminal would be more or less complete, so there is no need for more than one. There may be occasional exceptions, for example where the events to be covered are of such enormity that multiple articles are clearly required (obvious example: the 9/11 attacks). But the "one article" rule is followed for killers who have had much more media coverage than Knox (Lyle and Erik Menendez, Moors Murders etc). --FormerIP (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with your arguments, FormerIP. WP policy regarding a person who is notable because of one crime is that they generally shouldn't get their own article if both the following are true: 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event; AND 2. The person remains OR is likely to remain, a low profile individual. Seeing as it is 3 years after the crime and Knox is still featured prominently in the news, Knox is the subject of countless articles, Knox is the subject a few books, and Knox is the subject of an upcoming movie (The Amanda Knox Story), the second prong of the test cannot be satisfied. Not only is she high profile, but she looks to remain high profile for the foreseeable future. (I would also argue that the first prong is not met, but that is unnecessary)

Furthermore, your examples of the "one article rule" don't further your cause. While it is disputable that Knox has received less coverage than the Menendez crimes, it is highly unlikely that, at least in America, that the Moors Murders got even half the coverage that Knox did (I had never heard of these murders before, neither had anyone in my office who I've asked about this...of course, this is probably because we are in the US). Additionally, the Menendez article is not written like a crime article, but like a biographical one (albeit with both brothers treated together). The article spends time introducing their early life and education, and about 33% of the article deals with their lives after the trials/appeals. Other crimes, like the DC sniper crimes, which were big stories for awhile but petered out much faster than the coverage of Knox, have each of the individuals getting their own biographies. This is also true of every member of the Manson family, among others. We have a case here were common sense, WP policy, and past practice all dictate that Knox should have her own article.63.209.178.11 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Being on opposite sides of the Atlantic obviously we have some difficulty agreeing what are really major murder cases. I'm happy to allow you the research job. Can you name any really major murder cases, ones that everyone in the US will be familiar with, where there was one crime, the perpetrator is not notable for anything other than the crime (ie not Phil Spector - although you'll notice if you take a look that even that doesn't get a standalone article) and where there is an article covering the crime and a separate article covering the biography of the killer? Note that examples such as the Manson Family don't count because they committed multiple crimes - obviously with all the people involved and the large amount of data required just to give them a basic biography, one article is not going to be suitable.

Further examples where there is only one article (just for interests sake): Ted Bundy, Bonnie and Clyde, Peter Sutcliffe, Harold Shipman, Michael Swango. Why is Knox such an exceptional case? --FormerIP (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I reject the premise of your questions. My premise was that Amanda Knox needed her own article because readers coming here to learn about her find the article (1) not organized as it would be in a biography; and (2) doesn't contain information that otherwise would be contained in a biography. The people who have biographical articles (Ted Bundy, Menendez Bros., the Unabomber) and those with both articles on the crime and the people (Manson Family, DC Snipers) all have biographical information available to the public that we are not providing concerning Knox. When it comes down to it, there is no WP policy against having a Knox article, and there is no content argument to be made that this will somehow hurt Wikipedia. We are depriving the readers of Wikipedia of encyclopedic information for no good reason.

You can try and argue the difference between multiple crimes and single crimes (are conspiracy and racketeering charges single crimes (as the US government contends) or separate ones for the purposes of WP? is a b&e, rape, and murder one crime even though it is prosecuted as 3?) but the distinction is essentially meaningless here as the second prong of the "one-crime" test is not met (namely, Knox is not a low profile individual).

The real question, for me, is has there ever been a criminal who has gotten as much media attention as Knox has without having any article which includes standard biographical information about that person? Why is Knox such an exceptional case that readers of Wikipedia must be deprived of that information?

In addition to the people I mentioned above, the Columbine killers got their own biographical article and there is a columbine massacre article. Ditto for the Virgina Tech shooting guy. Ditto for the Amish school killer. Ditto for Karesh. The Winnendon and Jokela shootings articles have more biographical information than they do information about the crimes.63.209.178.11 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why biographical content can't be added to the this article. That doesn't pose a problem. Seung-Hui Cho has a 90K biography page and I think that is why there are two pages for the VT massacre. The existence of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as an article is bizarre, I think, and that should really be merged.

Anyhow, as I said half a mile up the page, this discussion is pointless. To get an Amanda Knox article created you will need to establish a community consensus. Even if you suddenly persuade me to change my mind in this discussion, that won't get the page created. --FormerIP (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While adding biographical content to this article will help a notable subject be addressed on Wikipedia, it is not perfect (we can't put all that we should about Knox into an article about Kercher's murder) and it comes with some major logistical problems. Where does the information go so that it doesn't break up the main thrust of this article (Kercher's murder and the surrounding events)? What information is to be included? Should the other convicted parties get similar treatment (despite far less media coverage)?LedRush (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with the point raised by RegentsPark. This article doesn't even mention Knox' date of birth, it hardly mentions her at all, and gives no information a reader would be looking for. That's ridiculous, given that Amanda Knox is the main person of the story (almost all coverage has focused on her), a movie on her life (titled Amanda Knox) starring Hayden Panettiere as her is in production[11], there have been books, her name returns millions of Google results, etc. The one event thing is nonsense, she is known for this just like Obama is only known for being the President. Cawalt (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone asked: "looking at this pragmatically, what would go into an Amanda Knox article? "

My answer: How about some basic information about her for starters, such as when and where she was born, information that's not currently found in this article(!). When her life is interesting enough to make a movie about, it's surely interesting enough to warrant a Wikipedia biography. Most subjects of biographies are less notable and have never been the subjects of biopics. Amanda Knox is a famous person, like it or not. Cawalt (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well said. You are 100% right. I suggest you go read WP:BLP1E because that is the most usual argument against a Knox article. I have disputed this argument above, but expect push back on the idea of a Knox article based on that reason.

I suspect the real reason for resistance against an article is based on three things: 1. the contentious nature of this crime and the widely divergent press coverage it received in Italy, Britain and America (and the corresponding criticism of the media/legal systems in those countries); 2. people's distaste for POV pushers that come to this article and argue Knox is innocent (which is not the role of WP); and 3. a sense that it is wrong that Knox (a convict) has gotten more attention (mostly positive in the US) than the victim. I am sure my assessment will be vigorously disputed by the regulars here, but it doesn't matter. I tell you this only to warn you against uncivil responses and to advise you to try and stick to making your arguments in a civil way, to not be bullied, and to understand why people may have such strong opinions on this matter to which you should be sensitive.LedRush (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'll point out that nobody has attempted to refute my example of Elizabeth Smart having a page, but Amanda Knox not having one. The only difference between the two is that Smart was a crime victim and Knox stands convicted. Other than that, they are virtually identical in their pre-crime non-notability. I think LedRush should simply start the Knox page and post a link to it here, so we can all know it's up and help to defend it against deletionists. The Amanda Knox story has taken on a life of its own and there needs to be an Amanda Knox wiki page. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well that's not the only difference, but it certainly is a significant difference. Perhaps nobody has attempted to refute because your argument makes more of a case for Meredith Kercher having a page about her than Amanda Knox? There could be any number of reasons. A better page to discuss whether Elizabeth Smart should have an article is located here.

IP 98.118..., you are right with your analogy. Of course, Pablo has deliberately distorted your point to make a joke, which seems to be a bit of a MO for him as he has done this to me above. However, he is right that there are other differences between the two. For example, Smart has kept a relatively low profile while Knox and her family have actively sought the limelight. That means that Knox more clearly doesn't fit into BLP1E concerns because she is more clearly not a low profile individual. Additionally, Knox has received more press for a more sustained period (did Smart get half this coverage overseas?). Of course, other stuff exists, so getting too technical in this argument isn't helpful, but this should be added to the very long list of reasons why Knox should have her own article.LedRush (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

nb Much as I enjoy a joke, that wasn't one. I do feel that a standalone Knox article is not currently warranted. This may change. If, for example, she's exonerated and freed as a result of this appeal, I will support such an article, however. pablo 14:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pablo - by stating that you will only support an Amanda Knox article if she's "exonerated and freed", you betray the exact bias which I contend exists regarding Ms. Knox. You need to step back and see this issue more clearly. Ms. Knox's notability does not rise or fall on her innocence/guilt and for you to suggest it should, is biased. Also, as I suggested elsewhere above, take a look at the Lori Berenson article. That article long predated any suggestion she would be getting out or any exoneration, hence; you setting exoneration as a condition before a convicted person gets an article pales in comparsion. Lori Berenson became notable precisly because the story of her incarceration became notable - which is exactly the same thing with Amanda Knox. Some of those opposed to a Knox arrticle have not held themselves to the clear and common practices of the wiki, but instead are using specious and legalistic twistings to avoid the truth: Amanda Knox should have her own article. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that you are justified in calling Pablo biased, the thrust of your argument is correct. I have also pointed to many examples of people who have articles despite less media coverage, a lower profile, and/or a separate article on the crime. No one has really defended their anti-article position while acknowledging the arguments for it (and the counters to their anti-article arguments. However, as FormerIP pointed out above, even "winning" the argument here won't guarantee an article on Knox (though it appears that many of the people who argued against the article are regular contributors here).LedRush (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a blatant distortion. I did not say that I would "only support an Amanda Knox article if she's exonerated and freed". I was giving that as an example of a possible change in circumstances which would cause a rethink. I thought that I had signalled this by using the phrase "if, for example" so that people would be able to pick up on my meaning, seems that this was not enough. For the record then, this was a hypothetical example of one possible outcome of the appeal trial that would more than likely cause me to support a stand-alone article on Amanda Knox. This is not due to any 'bias'; I do not give two hoots about the outcome of the appeal but would like it, whatever it may be, to be covered appropriately. pablo 20:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pablo, that you would even consider changing your support for an article based on a change in her conviction status shows that you are focusing on the wrong thing - and that is indeed a form of bias. Guilty/innocent is irrelevant. Rather, what's relevant is the notability of her story. Think about Lori Berenson - it's the notability of her incarceration which warranted that she have an article. Amanda Knox is notable for similar reasons: 1) Controversial case, 2) Allegations of unfair trial, 3) International legal dispute of high profile, 4) Widespead media reporting. It's absurd that Lori Berenson should have an article and Amanda Knox should not. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No it is not an indication of bias.

I do not consider that Amanda Knox at the moment warrants a standalone article.
This may change in the future.
One of the many possible sets of circumstances is a successful appeal. This is what is known as 'an example', and does not show that I am 'focusing on' anything.

There is no bias intended or implied, and I suggest you withdraw your repeated accusations. pablo 12:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best to ignore the word "bias" (which I still think was poorly chosen). My understanding is that Pablo believes that one of the many examples of what could change his mind to allow for a standalone Knox article would be if she was found innocent. IP98.1118 believes that this focuses on the wrong point and that guilt or innocence is irrelevant to whether someone gets an article. While I understand and generally agree with that argument, it is clear that a reversal of Knox's conviction would make this story even bigger (and for an even more sustained period). For that reason, it could then pass Pablo's threshhold for notability (or for whatever BLP1E concerns he may have). Even if my above speculation is incorrect, I'd like to ask Pablo a question: does Knox's status of either guilt or innocence effect your opinion of whether WP should have a standalone article on her (regardless of any increased media attention afforded to that change of status)? Another way to ask this would be: If Knox had gotten the exact same amount of media attention as she had now, but was originally found innocent, would you think she is deserving of her own article?LedRush (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly accurate analysis, and an interesting question. I think the answer's probably 'no', but it obviously would depend on other (hypothetical) factors which might come into play in such a situation. pablo 15:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bradley Manning is only known for one thing. Why does he get his own page? It seems a matter of common sense that there should be a page for Amanda Knox. Totorotroll (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

There is one page about the events involving Bradley Manning, and one page about the events involving Knox. The Manning page could just as well be called "US Army Wikileaks scandal" or something similar; but this page clearly couldn't be called "Amanda Knox". Black Kite (t) (c) 22:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, this response covers over the truth: the Bradley Manning page contains much biographical information about him (approximately 40%) that an article on the murder of Kercher can't really include about Knox. There are literally hundreds of articles on wikipedia which are more BLP1E susceptible than a Knox article would be, but none of that matters in this context. A very small and very vocal group of vigilantes has decided to protect the world from having easy access to biographical information on an extremely public and notable person.LedRush (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of biographical information in that article; there's far more than is needed. It would make more sense to change the title and have an article about the 'one event' that he is notable for which could contain a (sgort) biographical section.
There are certainly some vigilant editors here, but calling them "vigilantes" seems like you are intending a personal attack. pablo 09:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pablo - please tell me, from your perspective, should Jared Lee Loughner have an article, yes or no? And since there is one for him, please explain to me why he does and Amanda Knox should not. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner; but there's a representative sample of the cases pro and con for articles like this there. I think that the article should be about the event, and Jared Lee Loughner should redirect to 2011 Tucson shooting. This may be what happens, in time; this is a very recent event; the Knox article was redirected here in June 2010, a couple of years after the murder. pablo 11:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pablo - if you were as diligent about seeking the removal/blocking of other articles of this type as you have been about Amanda Knox, I would put more weight on your assertions. As it stands now, I feel you have wp:own issues regarding Ms. Knox and a page for her and I think you should recuse yourself from this debate. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes no difference to me what weight you put on my assertions. I have thousands of articles on my watchlist, and will edit any, all, or none of them as I see fit, not in a way that you decide appropriate. If you want to discuss Loughner, there's a handy page here where you can do so. One of the things you can discuss there is a merge. pablo 17:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, when you say "It makes no difference to me what weight you put on my assertions" it makes me think that your mind is closed towards reaching a consensus with other editors. Is it? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it means that I do not edit in order to win your approval, nor do I intend to start. pablo 21:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but I do ask you to please take notice of the fact I've not suggested in any way that you should be seeking my approval. And frankly, I fail to see why you would suggest that I have. That said, I am highly interested to better undestand your reasoning for opposing an article about Amanda Knox. So far, I've pointed out to you that Elizabeth Smart, Lori Berenson and Jared Lee Loughner all have articles. Others have pointed out that Bradley Manning also has one. None of those people are situated any differently than Amanda Knox. What is puzzling me is the apparent disparities in their treatment as an article subject vs. Ms. Knox. Perhaps if I understood your thinking more clearly, I would feel that we are doing the right thing by wiki rules in blocking the Knox article. But as it stands right now, I feel those who oppose a Knox article have not made a good case as to why Ms. Knox ought to not have an article along the lines of the clear precedent set by the other articles. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please take notice of the fact that in this post you implied that I should be seeking to remove the 'other articles of this type' and suggested that I 'recuse from this debate'. Why you feel entitled to make such demands I don't know.
You certainly are puzzled; further clue may be gained by reading this essay. Please do so, because it's getting somewhat tedious repeating that the place to discuss the articles on Elizabeth Smart, Jared Lee Loughner, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davey etc is on their respective talk pages.
Incidentally, why not log in? pablo 22:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

My posts speak for themselves, as do yours. Rather than go in cricles, I'll take your tangental reply to my last post as your concession that you are in fact mistaken: At no time did I suggest that you needed to win my approval. Now, regarding those other articles being metioned here; I am mentioning them because the very existance of those articles indicates to me that this wiki has a precedent of allowing the exact type of article which some of us want for Amanda Knox, but you oppos. Frankly, I feel it's imcumbent on you to explain why the clear precedent of those articles shouldn't trump your opposition; but so far, you've declined to address that point. Your silence on this point impedes our ability to reach consensus, so I ask that you please address my point, which is: I contend that the existance of those articles indicates the wiki does in fact allow articles of the type which an Amanda knox article would be. Please explain why you think this is not so. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

When I read through this exchange, I thought that Pablo had addressed the point about the existence of other articles by pointing us to the Other stuff exists essay. Bluewave (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but as long as someone chooses not to listen it's senseless to explain it over and over again.TMCk (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too. I'm done for the night. pablo 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, pointing out that other stuff exists is basically a borderline rude way of saying "I'm not going to answer your question". IP 98, however, seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia or its policies need to be applied consistently. Unfortunately, that is not the case, so perhaps pointing out that article does do some good, even if it avoids the underlying points of the discussion. A more fruitful way of addressing this would be to state why you do or don't think those other people should have articles and, if you think that they should, what differences in those other subjects and Knox would lead you to the belief that they deserve their article and Knox doesn't. Of course, this is a tiring task (especially if you don't even know those other people) that requires some research and contemplative analysis. That's a tall order when, as we've pointed out a bunch of times, even if we convince a couple of people here, we'd still have to engage in a more formal process of getting consensus on to change on this subject on the request for deletion board (whatever it's called).LedRush (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question of arguing "other stuff exists, so this should too". No, the issue at hand here is that by virtue of their existance, those other articles (and more like them) boldly proclaim that large numbers of editors at this wiki have reached a consensus regarding articles of that type, which is: There's no proper justification to exclude them; for if there were, those articles would not exist. In other words, the existance of those articles indicates there are many more editors (and thus a much larger consensus) agreeing that the article type being sought for Amanda Knox is definately permissible. That being the case, the only question remaining is; why do Pablo (and those aligned with him) seek to block an Amanda Knox article? The larger consensus of the wiki, as evidenced by many, many articles is that those seeking to create an Amanda Knox article are in fact correctly interpreting the wiki guidelines - and those opposed are not. That's how I see it. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 23:52, 18 January 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.

Section entitled "Defendants"

Unless this section is expanded to include other people charged but not convicted of the crimes, I think it should be renamed in line with other WP articles. I think that the term "Defendant" indicates that someone is currently on trial for doing something and that the guilt or innocence hasn't been established. While there are appeals ongoing for two people, once the initial convictions came through I feel that "Defendants" is incorrect for one person and misleading at best for the other two (in the US, the two would no longer be "defendants" but, instead, would be "appellants". Articles with this type of section (small biographical info) are entitled "Gunman" for the Amish School Shooting and "Perpetrators" (in the Virginia Tech massacre and Moors Murders. I believe that the latter designation would be better in this case. However, as I note above, two of the perpetrators are still the subject of appeals, and so perhaps another title might be best. Regardless, I don't think "Defendants" works any more.LedRush (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So, does silence mean acceptance, apathy, or other?LedRush (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I have a very strong opinion about this. Think it is complicated because we have different defendants (or whatever) at different stages and because it might be complicated translating from the Italian legal system (the current appeal is supposedly technically a retrial - in the English system that would mean that K&S are "defendants" still). "Appellants" would also not be a long-term fix, because we will have to think of something else in a few weeks when the appeal ends, whatever its outcome. "Defendants" seems okay to me - even if the three are no longer defendants, that does not mean it is wrong to call them that in an encylopaedia (eg in this article Hartlepool by-election, 2004 there is a list of candidates, even though none of the people on it are currently candidates in that election). "Perpetrators" - equally okay since they have all been convicted - but also probably not worth it if it is going to cause drama. --FormerIP (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Several other articles use "Perpetrator" or "Perpetrators". For right now, I think Defendants is correct, mostly because of the drama any change would cause (sad as that is to say). Has anyone looked at similar articles to see how this was handled? Ravensfire (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to bundle them together under a handy title as one has finished his appeals while the other two are appellants. Perhaps two subsections; 'Rudy Guede' and 'AK & RS'? Or a subsection for each of the three separately? Clumsy though, and I take the point that it is of no particular value to swap one thing for something just as bad. pablo 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Could we simply take out the 'defendants' heading and raise the heading level of their biographies up to the top level? Bluewave (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's sort of what I meant, at the end, having gone the long way round! pablo 00:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just like FormerIP laid out above I think "defendants" is the most neutral description/section title which can be applied to all defendants in this case. In repetition: Guede, one of the defendants, was convicted and has no appeal left unless some major new development would place doubt in his conviction; Yet he can by FormerIP's argument still be called a "defendant". The other two convicted fellows, and there is no doubt about it, are still defendants and their conviction under appeal and no matter the outcome they will remain defendants even if acquitted. I personally see a change to perpetrator (at least in this case) as a POV-term that clearly can be avoided w/o compromising accuracy. Quite the opposite if one would ask me. Condensing my point: Leaving it as is would most likely avoid more problems for a minor issue than it would resolve.TMCk (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: As a reminder, section titles should be as neutral (NPOV) as possible.TMCk (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Bluewave. Not sure what you mean by "Could we simply take out the 'defendants' heading and raise the heading level of their biographies up to the top level?" Can you clarify for me, the one who seems to have lost you there? Although I have a clue about what you meant it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Maybe I'm just looking at it in the wrong way.TMCk (talk)

Hi TMCk, and good to see you back here again! The word 'defendants' only appears in 2 places in the article. One is about Guede's appeal, describing a time when the legal status of all three was indeed defendants, so that looks OK. The other is a section heading which covers the short biographies of Guede, Knox and Sollecito. My thought (which may not have been fully thought through) was to remove that single-word heading and to make each of the biographies a section in its own right. Currently the contents listing shows: "2 Defendants; 2.1 Rudy Guede; 2.2 Amanda Knox; 2.3 Raffaele Sollecito". With my suggestion, that would become: "2 Rudy Guede; 3 Amanda Knox; 4 Raffaele Sollecito". I don't have any strong views about it but it would be a simple way of removing the label 'defendants'. Generally, I'd be in favour of trying to avoid words which label people: 'perpetrators' etc. Such words involve us in making judgments about people, which is not our job. So why not just take out the one-word heading? Bluewave (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Bluewave. Your approach goes much further than I'd thought, might be somehow feasible (?) and if so would have my full blessings (not that the latter is of any importance of course) but I sure like the thought of avoiding any qualifier/labels [like I do in real life]. Yet, how do you think it could be applied w/o any subheading? I don't think it would work w/o any at all so we would need to come up with one that doesn't label and yet is a qualifier that fits all three defendants. We have "1.Meredith Kercher" (which is clear from the title that she is the victim) but we can't just go on with "2. Rudi Guede, 3. Amanda Knox and 4. Raffaele Sollesito" as it would be very confusing for any reader not somehow familiar with the case. We're beyond of "accused" or "alleged" and before posting this I was thinking a lot about a sensical replacement but nothing popped into my mind. Any idea from your side?TMCk (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Some scattered thoughts: 1. Other articles use the term "perpetrators" without NPOV concerns. 2. When we describe the past trials, "Defendants" is fine. However, it is inaccurate for all 3 right now (totally wrong for Guede and merely technically wrong for the other 2). 3. It's not that big of a deal (meaning, I don't have super strong feelings about this even if we get it "wrong").

If it would be too confusing to remove the label altogether, how about "Convicted Parties" or "Involved Parties"? The latter could open the section to a brief description of Lumumba (though that could be a bad pairing).LedRush (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really an expert as far as legal English goes; however, considering the three from an Italian point of view, LedRush is technically correct. Rudy Guédé, having been convicted by the Corte di Cassazione should be called condannato, because his conviction has become res judicata under Italian law, and not merely imputato (defendant). As far as ~~Meredith~~ Amanda and Raffaele are concerned, instead, they're both still imputati of the crime (defendants, meaning that they're charged with a crime) and appellanti (appellants, meaning that they've appealed their conviction). There is no legal definition that can, at this time, accurately describe all of their legal statuses, in my opinion, unless we choose something more general (and less legal in nature) such as "people charged with the murder" or "people prosecuted for the murder" or something alongs those lines. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Salvio, your suggestion of "People charged with the murder" sounds about the best option to me. Just one correction....I think you meant 'Amanda and Raffaele', not 'Meredith and Raffaele', in the above. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Erm, yes, that's what I meant... Thanks, I've fixed it.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with either Bluewave's suggestion (separate header for each section) or Salvio's. I agree that it does need to be changed as an appellant is more of a plaintiff than a defendant pablo 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody objected to my proposal, I've gone ahead and boldly changed the section header. Please, feel free to revert. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. Do people think we could also get rid of the infoboxes in that section. I can't see infoboxes used that way in comparable articles and they don't really add much. Because the three "People charged..." sections are brief, it's not as if users will struggle to find the key info. --FormerIP (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Guede and drug dealing

An anonymous editor changed the bit that says Guede had no prior criminal convictions to a new version saying he had prior convictions for drug dealing. The source was also changed from the Guardian (which supports the old text) to the Telegraph (which supported the new). This is clearly a matter of BLP and potential libel so I would think we should err on the side of caution where there are conflicting sources. I have therefore reverted, at least while we discuss. Can anyone quote a source that is more definitive to settle the matter one way or the other? Bluewave (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Every source I found (in only five minutes' searching) says that he was a drug dealer, but none say that he was a convicted drug dealer.LedRush (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlike newspapers, we don't generally "label" people with alleged crimes. We don't call Amanda Knox a "murderer" (though newspapers like The Sun feel free to do so). We similarly don't call Guede a drug dealer. If there is something factual available, we would say that. We can factually say that Knox was, on a certain date, convicted of murder (not the same as calling her a murderer). We can't factually say that Guede has been convicted of drug dealing. Bluewave (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant and biasing statement?

Hi, I was reading this article after reading an article about the new movie. I came across this sentence: 'Since the trial, Mignini has been convicted of "abuse of office" and 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.[86]'

To me this adds nothing to the article, is irrelevant to the thrust of the article, and really seems to cast a negative slant on the prosecution, a POV bias probably. I think it should be removed. Any thoughts or comments for retention or deletion? Mondegreen de plume (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It would be relevant to a biographical article about Mignini (if he was notable enough to warrant one) but, here, it reads like we are trying to draw the reader's attention to this detail, in a rather pointed way. Bluewave (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mignini was being prosecuted for abusing his position as prosecutor during the same time period that he was prosecuting this case. That makes it relevant to this case. In the US, a prosecutor under indictment would be not be allowed to continue working as prosecutor, I believe the same is true in the UK. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bluewave and Footwarrior. Is there a better way to integrate this info into the article?LedRush (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ledrush, I don't think Footwarrior and I are in agreement with each other, so you are probably not in agreement with both of us :-) ...in fact I think you are in agreement with Footwarrior and not me. Bluewave (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This case is controversial for several reasons, including the reputation of the prosecutor. A Wikipedia article should not argue a controversial subject, but it should provide the relevant facts that allow readers to understand why the subject is controversial. Mignini's conviction for abuse of office is one of those facts. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, I agreed that it seemed to call out attention to this unduly, but I agreed with Footwarrior that it was relevant to the subject matter. Hence my call for better integration. Not very helpful, I know...LedRush (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I take it all back. You really do agree with both of us! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TV movie

I see that Wikipedia now has a Amanda Knox: Murder On Trial In Italy article. Personally, I find the making of such a movie to be so obscenely despicable that I don't think I'll even involve myself in editing it. It must be unbelievably hurtful to Meredith Kercher's family, as well as being prejudicial to to the current appeals. Bluewave (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is amazing that this could be made whilst the various cases are still (to some extent) sub judice. Huzzah for profit-driven opportunism. pablo 12:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed in the coverage of this that there is a definite change in the way the case is being reported in tabloid sources. There doesn't seem to be a tinge of "Amanda is innocent" anywhere now, and quite a few sources are unequivocal: [12] ("Killer of British sex-murder victim"); [13] ("Killer Amanda Knox"); [14] ("Convicted murderess"). Not saying this has an effect on the article, just making an observation. --FormerIP (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The TV film is scheduled to air on 21 February 2011 (Monday) on the U.S. Lifetime (TV network). Can that U.S. cable station be viewed in Europe, such as in Italy? The Seattle Post Intelligencer has just reported that the imagined murder scene will be dropped from the broadcast version of the film, in the news report "Murder scene dropped from Amanda Knox film" (webpage: SeattlePI-811). The deletion of that scene should reduce the risk of people coming to the article to write about "how the murder happened in the room". It will be interesting to see if the film even pronounces the names as expected, for Guede ("Gu-Ya-dah") and Sollecito ("So-LAY-che-Toe"), and I suppose Meredith would have a British accent (or not, is that covered in the article?). The clothing worn in the film is similar to actual photos. Most likely, the film's article will be updated, quickly, with details from the film's storyline, as broadcast. However, watch later for edits to the MoMK article, being made early Tuesday morning (22-Feb-2011) UTC time. Wikid77 00:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Evidence of guilt

Having read through the article, I find it amazing that someone could be convicted of murder and sentenced with the only real evidence being a knife that had the defendant's dna and the victim's dna, but no evidence of blood. Surely there must be something more than this? Why would the Italian court have been so biased? A mention was made of anti-American bias. Maybe more could be written on that? Somaeye (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In Italy, I think about half of convictions are overturned/reversed, so when the verdict is "Colpevole" consider it as "sort-of-maybe-guilty" rather than the U.S. concept of "Guilty" (go directly to jail, unless a mistake occurred during trial). Hence, when Knox & Sollecito had their appeals accepted, the U.S. equivalent would be: "conviction overturned, pending the results of a re-trial with new evidence" (now in progress). During this 1st appeal, the new judge consented to dismantle the knife handle to hunt any blood particles in the disassembled parts, with results expected in March 2011, so expect that to affect the new verdict. Wikid77 01:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and I'm betting such sources do not exist for that claim. Reso lute 01:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the article says that the only real evidence was a knife that had the defendant's DNA and the victim's DNA (although I think it is quite possible that a court might convict on that alone). The article mentions the mixed DNA traces of Knox and Meredith, found in the flat and also the bloody footprints revealed by Luminol. Also one version of Knox's story is that she was present in the apartment when the murder took place. And her alibi of being with Sollecito is not supported by him. The trial lasted almost a year and the prosecution case ran to some 10,000 pages of material. Certainly the article has only summarised the main points of evidence rather than detailing everything presented in that lengthy trial, but I don't think it is our job to rerun the trial. Bluewave (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You will need to state with verifiable certainty that the judges and jury only considered those few pieces of DNA evidence that you mentioned. Otherwise it is impossible to know exactly what relevance or weighting that each piece of evidence, witness statement, or writtem statements played in their decision. The burden of proof is on you, and the Knox / Sollecito advocacy sites are not allowed. Jonathan (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Somaeye, on reflection, we do in fact have a very good source for how the court assessed all the different pieces of evidence and reached their decision: the so-called "Massei Report", which is the formal court record. As noted in the article, this runs to 427 pages of detailed explanation of all the evidence considered. The "double DNA" knife forms only a small part of it. For anyone interested in the full details of the evidence that was considered and the weighing of it by the court, this is a must-read! There is an English language translation on the Internet (Google for "Massei Report"). Bluewave (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A problem with this article is that most of the sources are newspaper articles. Few if any english language reporters covered the defense case for Knox and Sollecito. The books used as references were published while the defense was still presenting it's case. The fact that that the knife tested negative for blood is stated in the defense appeals, but since these documents are posted on pro Knox sites, we apparently can't use them. But the article could make it clearer that DNA testing of the knife did not follow the scientifically accepted methods for handling LCN DNA evidence. --Footwarrior (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. --FormerIP (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Footwarrior, you are going down a slippery slope here. By default, fifty percent of all testifying experts, witnesses, evidence and attorneys end up on the wrong. losing side of the coutroom verdict. I don't see how Wikipedia should consider unsolicited opinions of LCN DNA handling as key that will unlock this case; nor give it any further weighting or significance. This is strictly a matter that the defence lawyers need to make and prove, not Wikipedia. Jonathan (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia needs to explain the controversy better. Reputable scientists have stated that that the DNA tests used to tie two defendants to the murder were done in way that is prone to false results. The appeals court found some merit in this argument and brought in new experts to review the DNA evidence. As for FormerIP's citation demand, reference 55 in the article is a good start. --Footwarrior (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Footwarrior, those 'reputable sciences" cited in footnote 55 have essentially produced an unsolicited, open letter, and are not the same DNA experts in Rome that will be reviewing the actual evidence. I still see this as being an instance of providing undue weighting to unsolicited "reputable scientists" that have never been directly cross-examind and are not working within the confines of Italian jurisprudence. After all, DNA evidence is just about every courtroom case is disputed and besides, isn't this point already mentioned in the K/S Appeals section?.Jonathan (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's sad when people who are actually recognized as experts in the field are dismissed using scare quotes. Public perception is that DNA evidence is a slam dunk. But there are real scientific concerns about handling of DNA evidence. Especially when the quantity is in the LCN range. Perhaps we will get some better sources on this as the appeal progresses. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In which case we should wait for these new sources to become available rather than attempting to speak for the experts and add our own OR "scare quotes" into the article;) Zhanzhao (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The DNA experts have already spoken, I don't have to speak for them. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Footwarrior, the DNA experts you are referring to have most definitely NOT spoken in the only place that matters: inside the courtroom. Signor Ghirga and the rest of the defence teams have effectively ignored and excluded both the experts and their analysis / findings, so this is really a nonstarter. These such Outside-Looking-In-Experts are outside for a reason. Jonathan (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Footwarrior: the source at footnote 55 doesn't appear to say anything significant that isn't already in the article. "DNA testing of the knife did not follow the scientifically accepted methods for handling LCN DNA evidence" is not there, it's just something you are imagining.

Incidentally, I Googled the scientist named in that source and it appears that he is working for the Knox family ([15], 5th para). I wonder why he didn't mention that apparent conflict of interest? --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the source stated "To minimise the risk that some peaks arise from contamination, most US labs only count peaks falling above a height threshold of 150 relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and all dismiss those below 50. The trouble with the DNA found on the knife is that "most of the peaks are below 50", says Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho, who signed the letter and reviewed the DNA evidence."

Also, the letter was signed by 9 experts, not one.

Furthermore, if there is a conflict of interest, how do we know if was revealed or not? This is a news story on it.LedRush (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The article states the scientist is "working with the Knox family". That is not the same as being on the payroll as FormerIP has implied. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Then again, to have been truly neutral, the article would have been worded such that the scientist was just working on the case, or with the relevant authorities. To specifically link the scientist to the Knox family (why not the victim's family) does points to a comflict of interest. But thats my opinion. If this point is admitted the article, the fact that he was "working with the family" should be quoted verbatim, readers can draw their own conclusions as to whether there is a conflict of interest. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted FormerIP's last edit. It implied that the name of only one scientist that signed the open letter has been made public and that he was a paid consultant for the Knox family at the time he signed the letter. --Footwarrior (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

So the innocence project is working with Knox, and that's what people are considering a COI? By that standard, everyone working for the Italian government has a COI, and that should be mentioned every time any evidence collected or analyzed by them is mentioned. If any information of a COI is mentioned, it should be a shortened version of the following: "The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York and founded by Barry C Scheck and Peter J Neufeld in 1992. It is dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent injustice."LedRush (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Innocence Project findings should be considered a COI because they have were never part of the court proceedings. Their findings and analysis were not even requested by the defence lawyers Sr. Ghirga et al - let alone accepted into evidence, peer-reviewed, fact-checked, cross-examined and vetted & accepted by the jury.

If all of these steps come to fruition, TIP would no longer be COI. But for now, it would be giving them too much emphasis. Court cases are not determined by unsolicited, open letters. Besides, there is no mention of Knox's case on The Innocence Project website itself anywhere, just links to outside sources, so it is questionable how seriously they are involved. Jonathan (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The definition of COI seems to have expanded to include anyone who disputes the Italian prosecution. That may be how NPOV is defined on Conservapedia, but not here on Wikipedia. --Footwarrior (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to bring up politics here. Tell The Innocence Project to send their results to Sr Ghirga and then you'll have an argument. Otherwise you're just filibustering. Jonathan (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would the Innocence Project need to be part of the trial for them NOT to have a conflict of interest?LedRush (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an interesting article that says that the Idaho Innocence Project contacted the Knox lawyers to examine the evidence. [16] So, we can put this COI thing to rest, right?LedRush (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. We can't report the opinions or actions of a consultant for the Knox family without mentioning that link. That would seem pretty basic. --FormerIP (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith, but we're not talking about an employee or contractor, we're talking about the Idaho Innocence Project. If you want to mention them, that's fine, but it clearly isn't a COI. I would suggest the following:

A group of American academics associated with the Idaho Innocence Project wrote an open letter in 2009 expressing concern that contamination of this evidence was a possibility, noting in particular that, whilst trace amounts of DNA were found on the knife, tests for blood were negative and the results of the DNA tests produced results which most US labs would dismiss. The Idaho Innocence Project, a non-profit legal clinic dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing, is currently working with Knox's family to introduce DNA evidence to the court with the hope of freeing Sollecito and Knox." The second sentence uses language largely taken from the sources directly. The first was expanded to better reflect the source.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This takes only language directly from the sources and doesn't add the POV that some recent edits have had.LedRush (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, not quite - you make a number of unsourced assumptions, but lets not get into it because it isn't the main point.

PR guff produced by people working for the Knoxes should not be reproduced uncritically as if it represents factual information about this case.

Hampikian's quotes to the media are deliberately misleading, which anyone who knows about the procedures he is referring to could tell you. For example, it is true that the levels of DNA material tested in this case would not have been considered usable my most labs in the US. But this is not, as implied, because there is anything necessarily wrong with the testing done. It is just that most labs are not equipped to the standard required to carry out the necessary tests (you can see for this source [17] that there was actually only one suitable crime lab in the US at the time Happikian was speaking).

It's fine for the article to talk about advisors in the case (subject to noteworthiness), but not to faithfully regurgitate whatever they happen to have said. --FormerIP (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as has been made clear before, the Innocence Project is not working for the Knox's. Also, these are not PR anythings, these are what papers have reported about what a non-profit legal clinic, and DNA experts, have stated. What you seem to be doing is OR.LedRush (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, you are badly distoring every source you cite. The citation you linked to says that only one lab uses the technique in the US (not that there was a lack of suitable labs). From your cite: "Mr. Greenberg, during cross examination, elicited that the FBI do not use the technique and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York, the proponent of the evidence in this case, is the only laboratory in the United States that uses the technique for evidentiary purposes. Quoting from the "Caddy Report", Mr. Greenberg established that the study specifically found that there is "limited international recognition" of the technique and that "...the current state of the art... is not yet represented by a legal and scientific consensus..." If you're going to try to dispute RSs with OR, try to at least get stuff that helps your case, not hurts it.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To put that in context, the press release was made during a court case where the use of LCN testing was challenged, so naturally there were arguments to be reported on both sides. The eventual judgment, though was that LCN testing is reliable [18].

To learn about LCN testing, you could read the Caddy Report referred to above [19]. Paragraph 2.10 outlines the special requirements of an LCN-suitable lab. You can't just use any old lab. You have to equip one for the purpose, which is why most US labs don't do it.

The history of DNA testing is a bit a side issue here, though.

What leads you to claim that Greg H is not working for the Knoxes, when multiple sources say he is? Are you trying to split hairs over the fact that one of the sources says "working with" as if this makes a difference?

At the end of the day, we have someone working for the Knoxes making some inconsequential and misleading statements in the press. It's WP:UNDUE to give these coverage in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please show some of these sources that claim the Innocence Project works for the Knox's? You know, for, like, money and stuff? There is a big difference between being a paid consultant and being a non-profit law clinic dedicated to overturning wrongful convictions through DNA evidence. Why don't we just describe the actual relationship as I have above (which is all taken directly from RSs) rather than do some OR and invent some new labels to make it look as negative as humanly possible?LedRush (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't a "big difference". Greg Halpikian could be working for the Knoxes for pay or he could be working for them pro bono. Either way, he is not an independent observer, but is connected to a PR machine.

You haven't described the actual relationship, because you have made assumptions. For example, no source says that the other signatories to Halpikian's letter are members of his organisation. You've made a guess. A fairly sensible guess, granted, but still a guess. --FormerIP (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

{outdent}You know that the Innocence Project argues for the introduction of DNA evidence into trials, and sometimes that leads to confirming guilt, not proving innocence, right? They may work with a defendent, but they don't work for the defendent (as that would get them into problems when they don't advocate the defendent's positions). Also, if I've implied that all the signatories are from the Innocence Project, I'm sorry. I was merely trying to connect the sentences in a logical way. I'm sure you'll have no problem with the following:

A group of American academics wrote an open letter in 2009 expressing concern that contamination of this evidence was a possibility, noting in particular that, whilst trace amounts of DNA were found on the knife, tests for blood were negative and the results of the DNA tests produced results which most US labs would dismiss. One of the letter's signatories is part of the Idaho Innocence Project, a non-profit legal clinic dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing, and is currently working with Knox's family to introduce DNA evidence to the court with the hope of freeing Sollecito and Knox."LedRush (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

How about:

The Knox family have received support and advice from the Idaho Innocence project, who compiled a report in 2009 suggesting that contamination of this evidence was a possibility.

That covers anything that may be relevant to the article and doesn't attempt to shoehorn in any propaganda. --FormerIP (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It is factually incorrect (the Innocence Project didn't compile the report, experts in DNA analysis did) and it greatly soft-sells what the report said (basically, that the evidence would be dismissed by most American labs).LedRush (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It was compiled by the Idaho Innocence Project according to the source you presented ([20]) - presumably they are the "experts in DNA analysis" referred to in the other source. My proposal doesn't soft sell, it avoids coatracking inconsequential arguments as if they are something other than that. The DNA sample wasn't from blood, as is documented in the court reports. Most DNA labs in the US don't run LCN testing. Both are things factually correct, but the spin of the Knox camp that either fact is a big deal should not be replicated in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not spin - it's a conclusion of DNA experts. Your statement effectively distorts the source. Mine largely uses words exactly as they are in the sources.LedRush (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Felt compelled to register and just make a comment on this. Why is the allegation of Italian bias due to Anti-Americanism mentioned? (both by the topic starter and in the article). As regards Europe and U.S. relations, while the UK/Ireland is the most pro-America nation in Europe, the allegation that other nations in Europe, and in this specific case Italy, has any major degree of Anti-Americanism that would "taint the trial" is an extraordinary allegation without foundation, and deserves minimal mention in my opinion.Ciriaco1987 (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Claim of an anti-american bias may be overstated. However, the article should discus the false and defamatory statements in news reports immediately following the murder. Including some of the reports used as sources for this article. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah....

I came here to read up on the trial and I noticed that the trial section is extremely limited in the abuses of the Italian police dept and the prosecutors. The reason this trial became such a media storm isn't because the defendant is American but because the Italian authorities engaged in egregious abuses of due process and general human rights. There is no section on this. I propose a section that details the criticism of the Italian authorities. 173.73.17.197 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Z.?TMCk (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose you've read the latest? [21] --FormerIP (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

FormerIP, the source you cite says "Italian police are suing the parents of Amanda Knox", in which the word "suing" suggests a civil action. This source[22], quoting ANSA, describes it as criminal libel, with a possible jail sentence. Can anyone better acquainted than me with Italian law please help clarify whether this is a criminal defamation charge or a civil libel case? We ought to have a sentence or two about the case, in the article, but it needs to be factually correct. Bluewave (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading articles such as these, 1 and 2, it would be appear to be a criminal case; they seem to have been charged with "diffamazione a mezzo stampa", defamation by the means of the press, cfr. Libel#Italy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The main reason why most people are now following this case and are interested in reliable information about it is because the activities of the Perugian prosecutors and its legal system are increasingly coming under scrutiny because of the way they have mishandled this case. A Google search for 'Amanda Knox' reveals over 4 million hits. By contrast a search for 'Meredith Kercher shows just under 300,000. When is Wikipedia going to acknowledge what has been going on in Italy and reflect this controversy accurately in its portrayal of the investigation and trial? Attempts by many people to assist in providing a balanced article are repeatedly blocked by the small clique who have assumed control of the page. This should be embarrassing for Wikipedia and should be corrected. NigelPScott (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have some specific proposals we could review?LedRush (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The suit against Knox's family sounds criminal to me. In more ways than one... [23]LedRush (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added a short section about the case. Bluewave (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed "claimed" to "stated". See WP:CLAIM for why. I would also suggest referencing the Times interview directly. If I recall correctly, it's already used as a reference for this article. --Footwarrior (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, good call (claimed->stated)! Bluewave (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to add the ref to the original article as suggested by Footwarrior. However, I could only find this[24] article from 2008, whereas the current references all say 2009. Was there a later article too? Bluewave (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Spelling error.

The word "defense" is misspelled several time in the article as "defence" Please correct error. HEWNPW (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)HEWNPW

Thanks but it is correct as we use British spelling in articles about British subjects.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but either spelling is ok in America. God, that edit is annoying.LedRush (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Sentence of the Court of Assizes of Perugia" (aka the "Motivation Report")

The main article (as of February 2011) makes no mention of, or citation to, the English translation of "Sentence of the Court of Assizes of Perugia", by Dr. Giancarlo Massei, translated August 10, 2010 (referred to by some as the "Motivation Report"). Available at http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

At 397 pages, the document seems to contain a complete overview of the evidence considered by the Court in determining the sentences it imposed.

Is there a reason why it is not even mentioned in the main article? I checked the revision history for the article, and there's no mention of it there either (i.e., I checked to see if anyone deleted the report from a former version of the article).

Some have stated that the report is biased in favor of the "guilters". Bias seems to be an unfair charge, although it is true that it is a report from a Court that has already determined guilt, and is now determining the sentence.

But in any event, as a first-hand record of proceedings, it seems odd that the report is not even mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.24.167 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Motivation" report is the subject of section 6.3 and is also referenced as ref 24. The English translation is not specifically mentioned...I think the Wikipedia rules on sources make it difficult for us to use that as the main reference, but I'm sure it would be useful to readers to add a link to it in reference 24. Bluewave (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggested new title: Trial of Amanda Knox

I think the article title should be Trial of Amanda Knox, not Murder of Meredith Kercher. Most of the coverage is focused on the trial of Amanda Knox and her person, and Knox is much better known than Kercher. For instance there is a new film, The Amanda Knox Story, its title doesn't mention Kercher. I also think the film, which is one of the case's primary claims to fame, should be mentioned in the lead. Cawalt (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Meredith Kercher the title should not be changed. Don't glorify ... Amanda Knox! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.163.87 (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Violently raping and murdering your friend should not earn you a ticket to fame on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.70.132 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been several trials, not just one, and several defendants, not just Amanda Knox. All are covered by the article. The article also covers a lot of other things: the trials are only a part of the it. I haven't seen the film (and don't intend to) but I doubt if it is solely about the trial. So, I think your suggested title would be totally misleading. The present title represents the murder which is the single event that is a common theme to all the subsequent events. Bluewave (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the statement was more a comment on the need for an Amanda Knox article rather than a serious suggestion about this page.LedRush (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Film - Amanda Knox: Murder On Trial In Italy

As scheduled, the 2-hour film Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy was broadcast on the U.S. cable station Lifetime (TV network) at 9 pm EDT (02:00, 22 February 2011 UTC), starring Hayden Panettiere as Amanda Knox (AK), and a girl with a British accent as Meredith (MK). It was followed by a 1-hour documentary program titled "The Amanda Knox Story" with video excerpts of all involved, narrated by a woman, with interview segments of Nick Pisa (reporter in Perugia), Barbie Nadeau (reporter in Perugia), Steve Moore (former FBI agent), Guiliani Mignini (prosecutor, translated to English), Knox's family (and friends), and Kercher's family (and friends). I thought some of the 2-hour film contradicted minor facts, but it showed 2 sides of the story: the prosecutor's view of Knox/Sollecito acting suspicious and short flashbacks of a gang attack on MK, versus "Amanda Knox" portrayed as forced into a false confession, puzzled by Sollecito choosing to "disassociate himself" from Knox, and flashbacks of MK as a fun, friendly girl fondly remembered. The film included the 2007 arrests to the 2008 Guede trial and 2009 AK/RS trial. IMHO, I don't think the film, as broadcast, will create a problem for NPOV balance of the article, because the quick, muffled flashbacks in the film showed the 2 opposing views of how AK and MK might have related to each other, where both views, as several short flashbacks, seem to have equal weight in the film. The several film scenes inside the cottage were fairly accurate in locations of doors & furniture, except the front door was treated as starting the hallway (rather than the el-shaped foyer), with no frig inside the entrance. More details could be added to the film article. Both the film and 1-hour documentary advanced the pronunciation of "Sollecito" as "So-LAY-che-Toe" (as expected); however, both had "Guede" spoken as "Gu-DAY" with the film also including an Italian TV-news segment saying "Gu-AY-dah" (as similar to French "étagère" - a multi-stage shelf). The pageviews to "Amanda Knox" have skyrocketed to over 28,000 per day (on 21 Feb 2011). Wikid77 06:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not suggesting we should treat this film as a reliable source, are you? Bluewave (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The documentary and the interviews with the people would be reliable sources, no?LedRush (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Interviews with people might be reliable sources for those people's opinions. If those people witnessed actual events relevant to the article, interviews might be reliable sources for the things they witnessed. In the past, though, there have been editors who argued for quoting the opinions of people who reside in one continent as reliable sources for events that took place in another continent. Bluewave (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely location shouldn't matter when discussing DNA and other factually verifiable items.LedRush (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

would be interesting to linguistically compare the different language versions of this article

i cannot read italian, polish or arabic, but i will say something about the word count.

the english language article is easily 10x longer than the italian. the polish much less, the arabic word count, well there are no vowels, but you get my point.

it is interesting that the english article is so full of information, misleading or not, and so full of sources and refernces, misleading or not.

my point is that the english language article is quite obviously biased- in its meaning, and also in the number of words used.

so much so that some people have edited it to try and change the name of the article to make a reference to the accused, as opposed to the victim.

someone get on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.161.74 (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific suggestions?LedRush (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is being suggested in terms of a "linguistic comparison", but I'd agree that a comparison of the content with the other language versions would be an interesting exercise. A few points though:

I don't think the length of the article relates to it's degree of bias, as seems to be implied above.
The present article went through a major rewrite, about a year ago. That roughly halved its size by removing a lot of duplication and concentrating more on factual events and less on opinions about the case. Several editors have since worked to reduce duplication further and to shorten it.
The huge number of references reflects the fact that it is quite a controversial article and is, of course, a biography of living people, and so great care has been taken to ensure that every stated fact is at least sourced. This is surely a good thing.

As LedRush says, a specific suggestion would be helpful. Bluewave (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The versions also cover different aspects of issues, between the English Wikipedia version and Italian Wikipedia version. If both versions were combined, then both articles would get bigger, clearly indicating that both articles are too small to cover all perspectives which writers have noted about the subject. Don't just count words: also count various topics covered in each article. I would even include what Rudy Guede claimed was said to him in the cottage by the supposed "unknown Italian man with the knife", warning Rudy, "Trovato negro, trovato colpevole" ("Found negro, found guilty"), as noted in the Micheli Motivation Report (28 October 2008). The reason this article can be so big is because the trial hearings were held about 1-per-week, with videos, fostering weekly news reports which covered just 1 hearing at a time, leading to an immense international reservoir of reliable sources about the trials. -Wikid77 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection back

Between the multiple well-meant but tedious changes of spelling (ignoring WP:ENGVAR) and the drive-by WP:POV additions, I've semi-protected for 3 months. If you believe the duration is overkill, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPP in a couple of weeks.

And to newcomers, please remember first and foremost to assume good faith, avoid accusations of bias that you cannot substantiate clearly by rock-solid reliable source, respect other editors and their work, and you will be listened to. In an ideal world, concrete suggestions for improvement rather than mere criticism would be the most constructive input.

This page is not a forum to discuss theories or point of views but an editorial board for improving the article. Thank you. MLauba ^(Talk) 09:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

TV movie again

Would some of the editors from this page please take a look at how the Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy page is shaping up. I have not got that page on my watchlist, mainly because I feel such antagonism towards people who set out to make money from someone else's tragedy, that I don't think I'd be able to edit that subject with any neutrality. Also I haven't seen the film or read reviews of it, and don't intend to do so. However, I had a quick look at the article and have some concerns:

Some of the BLP issues that we have struggled with in this article do not seem to be fully addressed. For example, a lot of statements are made without any source being cited.
There are some signs that the section on 'Differences between film and reported events' could turn into a POV fork of the present article. For example, the article states as fact that Knox was "hit on the back of the head, resulting in a false confession".

Maybe I'm over-reacting but I would encourage some of the editors from this page, who already know the case well, to take a look at that page and see what you think. Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

/* note - BLPN thread */

To notify local editors, a thread has been opened regarding the possible creation of a BLP for Amanda Knox. BLPN thread here - Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Giacomo.brunoro, 14 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Add in a "book section": Jacopo Pezzan e Giacomo Brunoro, "Amanda Knox And The Perugia Murder", LA Case, March 2011, ISBN: 9788890589614

Giacomo.brunoro (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Audio-book; ISBN doesn't appear to exist.TMCk (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The name appears to be "Amanda Knox And The Perugia Murder: Italian Crimes"LedRush (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Information checks out, title is listed on Amazon.Com. Added to book section with proviso that this is an Audiobook.Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GA assessment

Hi, there are three dead links in the article - http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher - a thought, as there are a fair few experienced editors here why not get a WP:GA review from an experienced reviewer as the article appears quite comprehensive, which will also serve to address any balance issues there may be with the content. Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Off2riorob (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support broader review.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's an tried and tested route to that. Someone could raise an issue on this talkpage and it could be discussed. Then if no agreement is reached, the issue can be taken to noticeboards and other DR forums. That's the way it's been working for the past seven or eight months since entirely appropriate and necessary action taken by admins to normalise the editing of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Element One: Single Event

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

Element Two: Low Profile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User-space draft bio page about Amanda Knox

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

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

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

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

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

Element One: Single Event

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

Element Two: Low Profile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag

As an experienced editor with a background in crime topics and a lot of experience with NPOV conflicts, I was asked to take a look at this article. I would have to agree that this is a very troubling article. As such I placed an NPOV tag on it.

While many of the comments in the open letter are obviosuly coming from people with a particular view, that does not change the fact that this article is horribly slanted. For example, there have been many reliable sources and many people involved in questioning the verdicts against Knox and Sollecito, but to read this article the lead suggests it's all over and done with and they are guilty and the "Knox supporters" section (I guess we are to believe no one supports Sollecito) is worded like it's only her family, a PR campaign and a single senator who thinks it was anti-American. There are at least two mainstream books that tackle the case and support the idea that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, and there are many supporters of that view, included a former member of the FBI and several experts on forensics in multiple countries.

The part that is devoted to the possibility of innocence of Knox and Sollecito is so incredibly tiny as to give WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that they killed Kercher. Sorting through the mentions of specific claims about the evidence is going to be difficult, as many sources conflict, but I note that so far the article goes out of its way to ridicule any claims made by the defense. For example it all but promotes the idea that there could not possibly be any DNA contamination based upon a judge's statement that there could be no contamination of DNA because there would be nothing for it to be contaminated with, which several reliable sources can and have readily disputed (we would expect the house to have some DNA of both Knox and Sollecito in it, and the lab itself would also have some, obviously, both of which could easily contaminate the process, especially under the conditions).

Obviously digging through all this is going to take a while, and I hope that editors will take all of this seriously instead of merely pretending there is no problem. Certainly some of the impassioned responses above to Jimmy Wales' concerns show a troubling indication of devotion to a specific outcome for the article instead of concern about following Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

When you speak of "the part that is devoted to the possibility of innocence of Knox and Sollecito", I'm not sure I understand. I don't think the article currently discusses whether they are guilty or innocent or guilty. Do you think it should do? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The article should not take a side on that (and currently by the slant of the presentation it clearly does take a side), but the main reason this topic is even notable at all is because of the controversy, and reading the original lead and content would suggest there is no controversy and they are guilty as sin. If the prosecution makes a claim that is disputed by the defense, the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito should also get equal space for their opposite claim. If the police forensics expert who was called testify claims one thing and other forensics experts who have given their opinion on the case say something different then both sides should be mentioned. DreamGuy (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right now the article contains following paraphrase of Amanda's note:

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.

This paraphrase seems slanted. Her exact words are

"I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house."

I think rephrasing or replacing that paraphrase with direct quote would contribute towards neutral point of view.Matrass (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I think is relevant is that sources have been systematically excluded based on what I can only term "original research" arguments. Additionally, we see a rhetorical technique of lumping together obviously irrelevant "celebrity arguments" like Donald Trump and serious and important critiques from people like Pulitzer Prize winner Timothy Egans. Quotes from Egans are omitted, and as he is not a household name, lumping him together with Trump (who is a household name, and who is not in any obvious way qualified to comment at all) suggests that he's just another of a list of perhaps-not-very-credible complainants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources to incorporate

Considering there are now a number of sources that clearly meet WP:RS criteria about this case and go into more detail than just news articles with bits and pieces, we ought to make sure that their content is widely incorporated in this article so we have the best quality of sources. Two of the more notable are Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey ISBN-13: 9780425230831 and American Girl, Italian Nightmare - 48 Hours - CBS News. We should also make sure that the views of the Knox and Sollecito lawyers, author Douglas Preston and former FBI agent Steve Moore are fully mentioned in the article, as they have all gotten a lot of publicity. Not including them in any detail is majorly slanting the article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve Moore? In an encyclopedia? Surely not. Bluewave (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not? Who are you to say? Plenty of reliable sources have quoted him on the topic. Do you get to choose which people are worthy of inclusion or not? And how are you deciding -- based upon who you agree with, or some objective criteria that could be used for all potential sources? Steve Moore's coverage in mainstream news media surely is more credible than what the blog "The Daily Beast" has to say, and that is cited in the article. Please give something backed up by Wikipedia policy to support your conclusion, not just naysaying. DreamGuy (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to Bluewave to decide whether Steve Moore's criticism of the case is reliable or not. If there is a criticism section of the article, leaving Steve Moore's opinion out, whether you agree or disagree with it, is plainly biased. Both Ann Coulter and Wendy Murphy made big mistakes in their articles about the case, yet their criticism is noted. Steve Moore is a public figure who has been recognized by not just a blog, but several legitimate news sources. Here are some that are easily found on google:

1. http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/02/ex-fbi-agent-now-sure-amanda-knox-is-innocent/ 2. http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-innocent-retired-fbi-agent-steve-moore/story?id=11541334 3. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20018133-504083.html 4. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38969942/ns/today-today_people/ 5. http://www.nwcn.com/news/washington/Investigators--Former-FBI-Agent-says-Knox-is-innocent-101839513.html 6. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1308414/Amanda-Knox-innocent-Ex-FBI-agent-tells-US-TV.html 7. Also featured in this documentary on the case: http://www.hulu.com/watch/219422/lifetime-movies-beyond-the-headlines-amanda-knox

These are just sources I found in about two seconds.

If he only writes an article for an advocacy blog, I can see the argument. But to say that his criticism of the case is not worth mentioning in article when almost every major network in the United States has reported on his criticism of the case, is ridiculous. There very clearly needs to be a more advanced section on the criticism of this case. I would also suggest Bluewave would recuse himself from such a section as it somewhat apparent he cannot be objective in editing. (173.10.96.65 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

I find it interesting that we have a list of books and documentaries about the case at the end of the article but don't actually incorporate the facts and opinions presented in them into this article. Instead the vast majority of the references are to British newspapers, often tabloid. Very rarely are any American news sources cited, and on the few times they are either Fox News' opinion programs or the briefest of mentions. DreamGuy (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"It is not up to Bluewave to decide whether Steve Moore's criticism of the case is reliable or not." I agree completely, but can go one step further. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide this. He is an experienced investigator cited by multiple very high quality sources. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, they need to be included. Verifiability is crucial to neutrality, and we have a lot of high quality sources who take him seriously. Personal opinions about his credibility are not a solid justification for exclusion. If there are similarly credible reliable sources who undermine his work in some serious way, then... those should be reported as well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, material by Steve Moore was historically included in the article because the only material proposed was this [25], which does not meet WP requirements for reliable sourcing. Now that other sources have been provided, maybe Steve Moore is worthy of inclusion in the article. But discretion is needed because there's a lot of RS material on the case. Are we saying that anything in an RS should be included? Why are we particularly concerned about the insufficient quantity of "Amanda is Innocent" material in the article? Should we not be googlemining both sides of the case? Would a ten-foot long section detailing the opinion of every talking head on the topic make for good encyclopaedic content? --FormerIP (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think that we would just need the article to accurately reflect the prevailing views on the subject - that is, not to give equal time to pro and con sides, but proportional coverage to each. The problem with this is at least two-fold. 1. Different countries have different overarching coverage. In the US, I feel like 95% of the commentary is related to Knox being railroaded and the Italian system and media being complicit in ruining an innocent people's lives. I assume that coverage in Italy and the UK are significantly more on the "Knox is a hideous sociopath" side, though I understand coverage has balanced out in the last years. 2. Even within these countries it is difficult to assess what proportional coverage is.LedRush (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've no idea about your percentages, but I agree in general. The question is how do we achieve balance. We have legal process is going on in a country whose media is likely to be neglected by editors because it is not in English. We have a professional PR campaign in the US. We have the victim's father publishing in the UK. Which of those deserves most coverage? Equal? How does the existence of a conviction influence us? We have detailed primary data about the case, so how concerned are we about whether secondary sources are reflecting this accurately? Is all that counts that someone has been quoted in an RS? Or are we concerned about their credibility, as we would be in, say, climate change or holocaust? --FormerIP (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

All good questions, which is why I said in my edit summary that I have no solutions, just some ideas. Regarding the percentages, all I can say is that in watching TV or reading myself on the web, I've never once stumbled onto an article which too the "Knox is a guilty slut" route, but many have taken the "Knox was railroaded" route. Of course, the former are out there, and have been pointed out to me. It is hard/impossible to extrapolate out from this, so again, I don't know the relevance of my ramblings.LedRush (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The follow on question from that is whether "Knox is innocent" material should be pitted against "Knox is a guilty whore" material (there is a bit of that, although I wouldn't consider it worthy of attention) for us to arrive at NPOV. To my mind, that's obviously a false opposition. The paucity of material on one extreme does not lend additional credibility to material on the other. --FormerIP (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about the credibility of either side. The fact is that there has been much coverage os this issue, and it is controversial. Any article about Knox must include this type of information, and as there is only this article, the MoMK article does, and should, address the role the media has played in this case. The only question I have is if the presentation of the media attention is representative of the actual attention given.LedRush (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)