Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 36

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 30

←

Archive 34

In Court During trial

Maybe relevant that Knox and S were not put in the courtroom cage often used for those accused of violent crime. Also Knox and S were not handcuffed at all while in court although this is the procedure for those accused of violent crime (she was, I think, cuffed to the chair during her police interrogation). Guede was handcuffed. Massed ranks of photographers were allowed several minutes to take pictures of Knox sitting in court before the proceedings began each day. Vituperative language used to describe Knox in court.Overagainst (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the specific edit you want to make? Brmull (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

One that mentions that they were held in preventive detention, ostensibly because they were thought to be dangerous, but not put in cages or even cuffed while in court. I don't think it is worth saying about Guede being cuffed/body belted. I suggest something like_

"Although held in preventive detention until acquitted by trial of the second grade (secondo grado), Knox and Sollecito sat with their lawyers instead of being put in the cages often used for those accused of violence (which were used to seat journalists covering the case). Very unusually for someone charged with violent crime she was not handcuffed in court. Photographers were permitted to take pictures of Knox for several minutes at the beginning of each day of her trial." sourcesNewsweek, Burleigh 2011.

Error in article?

The article says "In testimony to the second appeal, Professor Conti said [...][81]". Wasn't this in fact at the first 'appeal' (the 'trial of the second grade')? Overagainst (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Bruce Fisher's book from the list of books

Bruce Fisher's book, Injustice in Perugia: a Book Detailing the Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, was removed from the list of books because it was self-published (via CreateSpace).

It is Wikipedia policy that the use of self-published sources as references for Wikipedia articles is generally not appropriate. Is there a similar restriction for the inclusion of a book in a list of books published on a particular topic? In this case the book seems to have achieved reasonably wide distribution, (there were 58 mostly positive reviews of it on Amazon.com), it's available in a professional looking paper back version, a kindle version, a nook version, and an android version. It is referenced numerous places on the web and sections of it have been published in Google Books.

There was a discussion above on the Follain book about whether it should be added to the list of books. Based on a review of that book in the Guardian it appears to be full of completely discredited information about the Kercher murder and yet reasonably enough it has been added to the list of books about the case because it provides information about the notoriety of the case, the amount of articles and books published about the case and the view point of those authors. Fisher's book is another element of that story and I think it should be in the list of books published about the case.--Davefoc (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published books should be removed from any article that they appear in, just as blogs or other user-generated things are. If we let the works of every average schmoe get listed in "see also" type of sections, they will soon come to dwarf the article itself. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Some previous discussions re. this book can be found here and here.TMCk (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to both responders, I suppose I'm not going to win this one, but I do disagree with you both. I looked at the two links: One of them referred to the use of self-published material as sources and one of them referred to links to biographies of living people. Neither of these were on point. The important issue for inclusion of a book in a list of books associated with a topic, IMHO, is whether the book has significant enough notability to be reasonably included. Fisher's book clearly meets that standard. As to Tarc's slippery slope argument: Where is the evidence that inclusion of the Fisher book and the other book referenced in the previous discussion would lead to the dwarfing of this article? There are only two books that people have advocated to be added to this list, that falls vastly short of dwarfing the article. How many self published books are there on this case and have any of them achieved the notability of the Fisher and Waterbury books?--Davefoc (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense what Tarc is saying. But there is also a case for not allowing books to be put into the bibliography unless they have been consulted in the writing of the article, I think. It's a kind of spamming to stick a book in a section on the end of an article when it is really unconnected with it except by subject. Some articles could have scores of legit books listed. Including ones that no one has read yet with titles like "The Definitive Acount of .... Overagainst (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The policy for articles about living persons (and this is one, because of the material about the accused, prosecutors, police etc) is that no third-party self-published material is allowed as a source or further reading. See WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPFR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's argument above seems compelling and I withdraw my original objection to the removal of Fisher's book from the book list. From SlimVigin's second link: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy." I agree that inclusion of information about Mignini makes the book subject to this restriction. Thank you for the response. --Davefoc (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry it's not what you wanted, but we have that rule for a good reason, mostly to do with the increased risk of defamation in self-published material that hasn't been reviewed by a publisher and their lawyers. I'm not talking about this particular book, by the way, but in general terms only. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that logic, so not only did I agree that the book should not have been listed as per Wikipedia policy, I also agreed that the policy was correct.--Davefoc (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If the risk of defamation is the issue then I would remind everyone that Amanda Knox is a living person too. Paddy Hill of the the Birmingham Six won a court case after he was mentioned in 'An Anthology Of Modern Irish Poetry'.( "one of the six men accused, perhaps wrongly, of bombing a pub in Birmingham, England".) I'd be careful of allowing Follain's book to be cited in the article.Overagainst (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like some sort of legal threat. Could you clarify?TMCk (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be clarified is whether those making claims about Follain's book have actually read it. I have. All the examples of alleged libel are clearly attributed, not stated as fact. The book is easily the most objective of all the books on this case, such that partisans of both sides will at times be annoyed. Most of it consists of a day-by-day journal without any commentary or analysis. There is zero reason to question this source on POV or legal grounds. Brmull (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear enough TMCk, if avoiding legal action is an issue, when in doubt don't. Louis Blom-Cooper is a QC, a top lawyer yet a unsuccessful defamation case was brought against him for something he was alleged to have merely implied about the Birmingham Six. It is not necessary to state something as a fact to be sued for defamation, whatever you might think Brmull.Overagainst (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no concern here for defamation by including Follain. No legal actions have been expressed or implied, right?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read Follain's book. I read the Guardian review. That review repeated as fact things that are at least disputed and I think discredited, but I don't think that matters with regard to Wikipedia's libel exposure. Wikipedia (meaning the community) has exercised due diligence by assuring that the book was published by an established publishing company that presumably had lawyers to vet the book. While I originally argued that Fisher's book should have been listed, I see now that not listing self published books is a way of demonstrating due diligence, good faith and reasonable ethics when it comes to referring to a published book that might contain libelous material (as theoretically all books might).--Davefoc (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Being in a list of books 'Further reading' is different to being referenced or cited for an assertion or implication in the article. Just like 'External links' are different to being in the article. My point was to advise caution about allowing Follain's book to be cited in the article as the reference for any assertion or implication. Yes , not listing self published books is a way of demonstrating due diligence, good faith and reasonable ethics when it comes to referring to a published book that might contain libelous material but that does not mean any assertion or implication which appears in a book from an established publishing company can be reproduced or paraphased on Wikipedia with impunity. The text on Wikipedia might be referenced to a book but be slightly different to the wording that a lawyer veted. Overagainst (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing the names in Section 2

IMO, the names in Section 2, could be listed alphabetically (by last name), or by importance wrt this article. In both cases, it should be in the order: Guede, Knox and Sollecito. Guede has been convicted and is serving his sentence. So he should not be the discussed last in this article. What do all of you say? Tinpisa (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

No strong opinion on this one only that Guede should be either first or last while keeping Knox and Sollecito together.TMCk (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No strong opinion but this part needs some clean-up to remove redundancies that were created when the article was rewritten. Brmull (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you want to start a new section and pinpoint the redundancies you have in mind as this section is not about that.TMCk (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Privacy of names per WP:BLPNAME

Are the names of Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (housemates of Kercher); and Sophie Purton (Kercher's friend) relevant in this article per WP:BLPNAME? Also does writing the names of Nara Capezzali (a neighbour of Kercher) and Antonio Curatolo (a homeless guy) give the article any more weight? What do you guys say? Tinpisa (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

These names should be pulled out. A search of the talk page archives would reveal a running consensus to omit the names.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And they've been removed before. Rothorpe (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of mentions of Romanelli. What's the best way to do it? "Flatmate R"? Rothorpe (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The best way whenever possible is to just say: "Her flatmate", "One of her flatmates"... and we can use the first name only for repeated occurrences of the same person when needed.TMCk (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

There are 12 mentions of her by surname so it's going to be needed. Rothorpe (talk) 00:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree Romanelli's name is needed for clarity. I continue to feel that Knox's siblings' names should not be included due to BLP concerns and undue weight. Brmull (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, in this case we should use her first name only for privacy. And yes, I agree that the names of Knox's siblings are not needed and shouldn't appear in the article. The names are in no way adding to the understanding of the article and privacy is key.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need for last names of the flatmates either, clarity or otherwise. Shirtwaist ☎ 09:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-neutral and unnecessary opinions in the article WP:OPINION violating WP:NPOV

The article is full of unnecessary opinions. A few examples:

"... a less salubrious edge of the town; Candace Dempsey writes that locals called it a bad neighbourhood..." - is it important for an encyclopedia to give such opinions?

"though Nina Burleigh writes that there was a window grate below that could have been used as a ladder."

"though none of the crime-scene photographs showed this"

"According to Burleigh, American criminologists say that covering the victim has nothing to do with gender, but might suggest the killer was inexperienced."

"streaks of blood on the wall as if someone had tried to wipe the blood off their hand..."

"Burleigh writes that 5 November might have been the last night police could question Knox without a lawyer, parent, or the American Embassy being involved"

" which Dempsey says completely changed the meaning of "see you later, good evening."

- why add Burleigh's/Dempsey's view. If it were important, the defence would have argued it in court. It wasn't. So why add XYZ's view?

" though in North America the expression "see you later" simply means goodbye" Nowhere in the paragraph is it mentioned that Knox had sent the in Italian, and not English. And it does not gove the POV that in Italian "ci vediamo più tardi" means "we shall see each other a little later". - is this a neutral representation of facts?

What is the opinion of all of you? Tinpisa (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove. The authors' opinions do not add anything to the article and we may be giving them too much weight.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with BereanHunter. We should stick to facts and keep opinions from people not related to the case to an absolute minimum if at all.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove. I do have a concern that if you leave Knox's text in Italian, and don't translate it, then English-only readers have no idea why the prosecution might have interpreted it as intending to meet up later. Brmull (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your concern has actually nothing to do with what this talk section is about but more with some recent edits made to the article. I myself think a translation should be provided so that readers don't have to try some translation to come to their own conclusion but a source not attributed to Knox's own translation is needed. With your expertise in this case I'm sure you can find one quickly and re-add a RS sourced translation to the article.TMCk (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The translation issue is not so simple because what Knox wrote and what she says she intended are different. I know people don't like Nadeau but in this case her translation illustrates the confusion ("see you later" versus "a little later") better than any other. Brmull (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep them all. These have been attributed at the request of certain editors. Now trying to remove them because of the attribution seems disingenuous. When a reliable source reports that a police assumption is incorrect, (for example, regarding access to the window) it seems odd to want to remove it. The only borderline one is regarding the streaks of blood on the wall. Because that also seems to be the one that doesn't add anything to the article, I could see removing that one.LedRush (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The article should be based on the views of reliable secondary sources, and these are their views. If something is actually mistaken (unambiguously so), then of course we can remove it, but if it's the opinion of a reliable source who has carefully studied the case, we should include it, with in-text attribution (Dempsey writes ...) as appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Personal views of authors of secondary sources are primary sources (I quote from WP: However a book review that contains the personal opinion of the reviewer about the book will not be a secondary source for that opinion). We do not know whether these views are 'widely held' or not but should exercise caution in using them (using the views only if there are reliable secondary sources for them per WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY). Tinpisa (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This kind of content is long overdue. Strong, reliable sources like books are always going to be better than weak, unreliable sources like tabloid newspapers. The papers were frequently filled with the most outrageous of errors, as if no fact checking was even attempted. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is predominantly sourced from two books. One book is devoted to Knox and deals with the Murder in the background (this article is about the Murder). Depending upon these two books restricts ease of access (and hence violates WP:SOURCEACCESS) and adds too much weight. Is it proper to depend so much on these two sources? Is there a dearth of other reliable secondary sources? The article itself lists 8 books and one audiobook in the references. There used to be numerous references to newspapers earlier. It isn't that there arn't other reliable sources on this subject. Tinpisa (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That in no way violates WP:SOURCEACCESS, as anyone can go and verify these two sources quite easily. Access problems are when a source is locked up and not readily available so that one editor makes a claim about what it says and nobody else can confirm it. If you don't have access to these two books you just go look them up in a library, buy them, or ask someone who has them. If they violated WP:SOURCEACCESS that basically no source would be allowed unless it was online for free, which is not and not a criteria. Free online sources are typically of less reliability. The newspaper sources used previously are especially bad, yet you want to restore them. Also, your claim that one of the books is primarily about Knox and not the murder is bizarre and incorrect. DreamGuy (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Free online sources are typically of less reliability". I don't believe that is true. Most periodicals employ fact checkers (or at least supervising editors), whereas fact checking of books is primarily the responsibility of the author (the publisher will check for potential legal issues). I prefer to use online sources when available but there is certainly nothing wrong with using books. I agree with Tinpisa--I've said this before--that the article quotes Burleigh and Dempsey too extensively, and unnecessarily, given the wealth of sources available. It amounts to free advertising for those two books, among other things. Brmull (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

what in meant by "he killer was inexperienced." is there any question that this was done by a serial murderer? Anyway a leading US criminologist says covering the body is due to remorse. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Il2lksVFS9oC&lpg=PT38&dq=covering%20murder%20victim&pg=PT38#v=onepage&q&f=false Kwenchin (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur with BereanHunter, et al. We should stick to facts and keep opinions from people not related to the case to an absolute minimum if at all. If people want these facts added to the article then source from sources closer to the origin. It is lazy to just quote an author about what you want to say. Find the basis for what that author claims and cite that unless you have established that that author's opinion is of particular relevance to the article.--Davefoc (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article would be short indeed if we took this approach. Say good-bye to all prosecution and defense arguments, judges reports, police theories, reactions, etc. It seems odd that it would be ok to say that the police reasoned that a the accused were guilty because the window was too high to climb through without presenting (the quite obvious) fact that there was a grate there and the opinion that this could be used as the author says (and did).LedRush (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, books from established publishers with fact checkers and editors are WP:RS. Blogs and tabloids are less reliable per WP:RS guidelines as is seen in this case. We are supposed to evaluate whether or not sources meet criteria for WP:RS, not give our personal opinions about what individual sources are reliable. There are other books that also have reliable content but are not quoted here as they are self-published, per WP guidelines. Dougbremner (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No one here has argued to include "Blogs and tabloids" or to exclude "prosecution and defense arguments, judges reports, police theories, reactions, etc.". This is not what this thread is about. It is about the mass of opinions from people not connected to the case.TMCk (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

For the example given by LedRush, was the defence ever quoted as saying that the grate could have been used as a ladder? If so, why don't we use that source? If not, can we document that Burleigh's theory is widely held? Burleigh herself actually hedges if you read the full quote: "a lower window grate offered a convenient ladder for anyone with the climbing skills of a ladro acrobata or a trained athlete" (italics mine). Brmull (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the prosecution and defense arguments opinions? I don't understand TMCk's statement unless, of course, he's changing the discussion from what it was before to something new. Which is fine, of course. I happen to believe that RSs which opine on the merits of the case are very helpful and necessary for an article of this type. I don't believe that the scope of the article should be made POV by including only that which was presented in court (why would we allow Italian law to dictate the content of an article) and to undermine a core principle of Wikipedia - namely letting the content of reliable sources guide us on the content of the article (of course with other goals and restrictions in mind).LedRush (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't change anything but rather tried to re-focus the discussion back to what the OP initiated. There is a big difference between the opinions of people involved in the trial and those who wrote a book about it.TMCk (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I quote WP:Fringe An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner. Please debate the retention of these fringe opinions (courtroom opinions, on the contrary, were mainstream ideas, and are very relevant). To respond to Doug, I was unaware that Hodder & Stoughton, John Blake Publishing etc. are vanity presses. Tinpisa (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

When the author of a secondary source gives an opinion they are the primary source for that opinion. We have no idea whether that opinion is fringe. Does being an author of a book about the case make that person an expert about Italy, about forensics, or about the Italian language? If a prominent cat burgler were to write a book about about the case, I think his opinion about whether the window grate could be used to gain entrance into the second floor window would be significant. But, to take an extreme example, when you have teen romance author Katie Crouch writing, "the window didn't look that high. I could probably climb up there" does that belong in the article? Brmull (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added the phrase "for anyone with the climbing skills of a ladro acrobata or a trained athlete" per Burleigh which kind of changes the context from how it was presented in the article. Good job, Brmull, on finding this. I believe that we are giving undue weight and possibly advancing fringe theories by allowing the authors' unqualified opinions. We should pare things back to the facts and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we could as easily say "anyone with the climbing ability of a romance author" seeing that multiple reliable sources have commented on this.LedRush (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"anyone with the climbing ability of a romance author" That is a long winded way of saying that it was within the capabilities of some people not others. It is not relevant that Miss Crouch may be wrong in thinking she could do it, or that most people (or most buglars) couldn't do it, no one has ever said that the burglar would not have had to be pretty athletic to have gained access through the upstairs window. The point is that the grid being there made it doable. Overagainst (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So is there a consensus to exercise extra caution in using primary sourced opinions of secondary source authors in the article per WP:PSTS and WP:BLPPRIMARY, keeping only those opinions which also have reliable secondary sources, and deleting the rest? Tinpisa (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the police thought the wall was "quite smooth without footholds for anyone wanting to cimb up to the window"()Follain p75-76. Burleigh points out that there was a grating ( ie horizontal bars) which could have provided a foothold. That is not any kind of opinion it is a fact. Burliegh is a very reliable source.Overagainst (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

Please remember to sign your post, Overagainst! Tinpisa (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was distracted by the need to indent a couple of people's comments, I try to make it clearer for those reading . One would not need to be an expert cat burglar to get in the window anyone can see that the grating is there. Burliegh was not giving any kind of personal opinon.Overagainst (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"though none of the crime-scene photographs showed this" That is not an opinion, Filomena Romanelli said that the glass from the window was on top of her computer, Monica Napoleoni, (head of the Perugia murder squad) and prosecuter Mignini also claim to have seen this. No photographs from the prosecution in court showed this so the only conclusion is that the crime-scene photographs did not show this. Not an opinion.

"... a less salubrious edge of the town; Candace Dempsey writes that locals called it a bad neighbourhood... - is it important for an encyclopedia to give such opinions?." The grim municipal park with a basketball court where druggies hung out was passed on the walk from the University to the cottage. The cottage was not in a desirable location and that is relevant because someone who hung out at that park is in prison for murdering Meredith Kercher.Overagainst (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(re-indented again) It would appear to a naive reader that the house inmates were asking for trouble since they chose a house in a bad neighbourhood, with a grating on the lower window that anybody could scale. (whether for good or for bad, the house was voluntarily chosen by the inmates ... why do you want the reader to question their choice?) Even the judgement of the Italian Supreme Court (in Guede's case) agrees that the glass was on top of the clothes, and there was a blood hand print on the wall (but why delve into how the print was formed - by wiping or by rubbing or whether the photos had them or not etc). A link above has already shown that at least one prominent American criminologist has a different view (regarding covering the body). Is there any other reliable source for the opinion that Knox's and Sollecito's phones were being tapped, and so Nov 5 was the last night the police could question her to fix her? If all these were so notable, why were they not put forth by the defense in court. I also find it very strange that there is no opinion or comment by Dempsey or Burleigh explaining the following sentence from the article: Knox's fingerprints were not found there or in her own bedroom.(Dempsey, pp. 147–148) So Knox had been living in a room for over a month and had not left any fingerprints in her room. How strange? It is these issues that need to be addressed. Tinpisa (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your scare italics are not very scary. I don't agree with characterization of the comments above, nor with the idea that there is consensus to remove them. Much of the information is fact, not opinion, as pointed out above. And we should include properly attrubuted opinions on the matters in question, as is done in just about any WP article I've ever seen. As has been pointed out to you, we do not let the Italian legal system, or it's evidentiary rules, dictate what is in a Wikipedia article, and your insistence that we do is strange (as strange as your implication that Knox was somehow able to selectively remove her fingerprints from the house, while choosing not to clean up others' fingerprints).LedRush (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As it happens someone who does the scene of crime forensic job just dropped by, I asked about fingerprints. He says that it is not at all uncommon to be unable to get any usable prints of a person in their room; there were plenty of smudged ones in Knox's room. Even often-touched places like doorknobs frequently do not have usable prints. He also said the reason the most often touched places like doorknobs are frequently difficult to get usable prints off of is because the prints overlay and obscure each other. It does depend on surfaces and the kit that is used. (For murders his squad call in an enhanced method where a specialised chemist applies a solution to the whole room including wallpaper. That can pick up prints from just about anything, including fabric.) There were numerous unidentified fingerprints prints found in Kerchers room by the way; that is incompatible with the room being wiped. And no one has ever claimed that there were no unidentified prints (in addition to the unusable ones) in Knox's room; that is incompatible with a wipe down there.That has addressed the issue of prints I think.Overagainst (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Overagainst! It is exactly these statments in the MoMK article that I would like to improve. Mention usable fingerprint instead of fingerprint. And LedRush, you got me wrong! I did not imply that somebody cleaned up the fingerprints selectively. I meant, what Overagainst has clarified - the sloppiness of the police in picking up all finger prints (by using better chemicals) and the impression given by the text in the article. I have said so earlier - we must only use facts in the article. Whether the blood print was made by rubbing or wiping is an opinion. Why the body was covered is an opinion (has been shown to be diverging). No glass seen in the crime photos is an inference. I strongly suggest that every word in the article be weighed per the maxim 'say what you mean and mean what you say'. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

They looked all right, they found 108 prints (finger, foot, hand) in the flat and said they'd identified 47: 17 were Kercher's 15 were Mezzetti's, 5 were Romanelli's , 5 were Sollecito's, 1 was Knox's. The Italian women had rented the apartment from August 2007. Kercher from 10 Sep, Knox arrived on 20 Sep and had been spending a lot of time at Sollecito's in the 10 days before the murder. Like I said clear identifiable prints, as opposed to smudges, are often difficult to find even where someone has lived. Incidentally, you may not have subscribed to the clean up theory but, Giuliano Mignini insisted at her trial that the lack of identifiable prints of Knox proved the house had been wiped.Overagainst (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't follow the trial. I'm a new editor on WP, who is trying to improve the page (and as a result improve my editing and reviewing skills). The article, IMHO leaves a lot to be desired. Differentiating a fact from opinion is important. For example, "there is no life in the universe except on the Earth" is not a fact, but our opinion, as we have not found life beyond the Earth. Life could exist somewhere, but we do not know about it. On WP, this should be mentioned as "it is believed that there is no life in the universe except on the Earth." Similarly, whatever opinions are given in the article, could be qualified by "Dempsey believes that ... or Burleigh opines that ....", in case they are considered extremely important. Otherwise, it is better to skip them. I leave it to all of you to decide. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yours is exactly the right attitude to have when editing this article. And in my view all opinions of authors about how the crime might have been committed are WP:UNDUE, and there should be a categorical ban on including such material because otherwise the article is going to descend into partisan sniping. Nadeau, for example, wrote a full reconstruction of the murder from her perspective; Burleigh did the same from hers. Where does it end? Brmull (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou, Brmull! WP is not the place for partisan editing. We must follow the policy and guidelines, and nothing else. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:Copied on this talk page

I see a Template:Copied on this talk page. Is it relevant anymore? Or could it be dispensed with? Your opinion. Tinpisa (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay with me. Brmull (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Copied to the "trials of" article? As that's been deleted I believe that the template can go. pablo 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

DoneTinpisa (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of first Names

I asked about this in relation to the use of 'Kercher' for Meredith and was told that Wikipedia style guidelines states we use surnames only after the first use of a name. The witnesses' names were reported by newspapers covering the trial plus several books and are now in the public domain. Now we have someone (who gave highly disputed testimony) being called by her first name throughout like she is something special when even the victim is called by her surname. Back to Wikipedia style guidelines please.Overagainst (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I see at least two reasons to call her Filomena: 1) She's most commonly referred to in sources by her first name. 2) Other people identified in the article by their last names also have their full names stated at some point. But I don't feel strongly about it. If other editors think giving her full name is consistent with BLP policy that's okay with me. Brmull (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Policies generally trump guidelines. It would be better to refer to her as a flatmate and leave her name off per WP:BLPNAME which is a policy. I'm not sure that we need to specify her name.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There were 2 flatmates one is just a flatmate who testified doing more than her fair share of the cleaning (without bleach) and a mark on Knoxs neck (which was not mentioned in notes by the medical doctor who gave Knox a full body medical examination at the police station) being a scratch rather than a hickey. She first mentioned the 'scratch' 10 months later. The other's full name is used repeatedly in every book on the case, including Follain's. Her testimony was central to the prosecution in fact Follain says that she was the one who convinced the prosecution that the break-in had been faked. Filomena Romanelli is the one who said that the glass from the window was on top of her computer (Monica Napoleoni, head of the Perugia murder squad, and Mignini also claim to have seen this) and testified to being bewildered by Knox's behaviour "The door's open. I go in. There's blood. I take a shower. I don't know about you, but I really don't think that that's normal.". Not every witness should be named, but don't see how the policy you cited applies to her or in any way mandates her being anonymous. Overagainst (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mandate that she remains anonymous...if it did, I would have already pulled it. BLPNAME advises that editors use discretion and that it is preferable to not use them if possible. If it can be reworded to leave them out then it would be better. For Wikipedia purposes, we don't have to pinpoint each detail.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Your sensitivity and concern for the privacy of an innocent woman does you credit. There may, or may not, be a case for not mentioning both flatmate's mames but Filomena Romanelli is too important and well known already. Her name has already been mentioned by every other account of the murder; it's not an issue of whether WP should be putting someone's name out there, it has already been done. I can't see how any account of the discovery of the body, Knox coming under suspicion or the trial could avoid naming Filomena Romanelli. She is central to all of the main events of the morning after the murder and was the main witness when she testified. Basically her name having become known is a reflection of her importance, apart from the very frequent reporting of her name in journalism, and again - all the books on the case mention her name repeatedly.Overagainst (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If some are concerned with BLP issues, I see no problem with using only first names for witnesses such as Filomena or Sophie. I strongly object to removing names entirely. When this was done before, it made the article almost unreadable. --Footwarrior (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia style guidelines say no to that kind of use of first names, it's very unencyclopedic. IMO the problem with first names is they privilege some people over others. When what someone says is a matter of dispute that skews the article. Even the victim isn't referred to by her first name.Overagainst (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should put your feelings aside and cohere to our guidelines and policies. Of course Kercher's first name is known and mentioned in this article but this has no bearing whatsoever in regards to other names of people somehow involved w/o their intention to be so (one can't choose to be a witness and not to be mentioned in the press even if they don't intend to be in the "light of fame"). Anyhow, what would it add to the article's understanding using her name? She is no public figure and has non importance as a person whatsoever.TMCk (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) Referring to somone by their first name only throughout the article is contary to policy. Either their name is not used at all or the full name is given once and then they are refered to by their surname.

(2) The person in question is named in every book on the case it is not a case of naming an obscure or irrelevant person.

The article, and many other articles, would be very difficult to follow if the principle of not naming witnesses were to be taken as far as you suggest.Overagainst (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that your #1 is wrong. WP:SURNAME isn't a policy, it is a guideline with an advisory to "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please cite the exceptions, reference please for any WP article that has someone referred to by their first name only throughout (about 10 times).Overagainst (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? Other stuff exists.LedRush (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of that response is unclear to me. I don't think the 'common sense' exceptions apply to the case. I'm asking for anyone to cite a single precedent on WP for someone to be referred to by their first name only throughout an article.(The person is mentioned 10 times in MoMK) Overagainst (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OtherStuffExists. LedRush (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice link "the invalid comparisons are generally so painfully invalid that there has been a backlash against the "other stuff exists" type of rationales. (See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid.) When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars"

"comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". True. I don't think that using a first name only throughout the article is consistent with any WP article. If it is, it ought to be easy to cite me an example of an article that does this. Overagainst (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of template:main (Section 2.2)

I wonder why the use of the template:main has been made. The section 2.2 is certainly more detailed and informative in many respects compared to the main article on Amanda Knox. Some examples:

was raised with her two younger sisters
Seattle Preparatory School, a private Jesuit-run school, and began to study linguistics at the University of Washington. She made the university's dean's list in the spring of 2007.
According to Candace Dempsey, Knox's friends saw her as energetic, athletic, and kind, a pacifist hippie who loved making cakes and jam, doing yoga, playing soccer and guitar, rock climbing and cycling.
Burleigh writes that, while Knox appeared to be a confident young woman, she was known by friends and family to be averse to any kind of conflict, and believed in the importance of positive thinking. She had grown in recent years into an attractive woman, and had become a compulsive diarist. All these traits, Burleigh writes—including her bubbly personality and tendency to practice yoga stretches at inappropriate times—contributed to her downfall in Perugia.

Either drop the template:main, or move the details and thus improve the main article on Amanda Knox, keeping only a short summary in the MoMK article. Its ridiculous that the summary is more detailed than the main article! Tinpisa (talk) 10:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Creating an extremely specifically titled page does not mean that information on that specific subject in an already existing page can be removed (if it did there would be chaos). It is not unusual for so called 'main articles' to be rather sub standard and lacking the attributes one would associate with a 'main' article, they are often created as forks which depart from the original page. I brought up the issue of the main article template here for the AK page being misleading and was told that there is no problem. Maybe that's right, after all, everybody can compare articles and and see which one is the 'real deal'.Overagainst (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there's too many personal details and most of this stuff should be moved to the Amanda Knox article, if anyone thinks it's important. The fact that her major was linguistics might be appropriate to retain. Burleigh's speculation about what might have contributed to Knox's "downfall" is another example of a source's biases being wrongly imported into the article. Brmull (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If the AK fork article lacks the detailed information available here you should complain about that on the talk page for the AK fork article. The obvious remedy for the shortcomings of the AK fork article is to copy the detailed information available here into the fork article. But removing information from this article while copying it into another is an absurd idea. There is no WP policy that supports doing that, and no wonder, any such priciple could be used to eviscerate articles. The text copied into a 'main' article might not be left as it was for long either. Overagainst (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, both non-essential personal information and the related cases which deal only with Knox should be in the Knox article and only very brief summaries or mentions of such should remain here. This article should focus on the subject of this article.LedRush (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

{{Template:Main}} says:This template is used below the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised....This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". Its usage should be restricted to the purpose described above. The policy is quite clear, yet you insist otherwise. The paragraph on AK should only be a summary, and the details should be on the AK page.Tinpisa (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoa there, this article already summarises relevant info on AK to the extent it should. The shortcomings of the AK article should be remedied by improving that article, by copying the summarised information in this article and then adding to it. Gutting this article to make the substandard AK 'main' page look better is not the way to go about improving things.Overagainst (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Whoa there, this article already summarises relevant info on AK to the extent it should." It seems at least a few people disagree with that assessment.LedRush (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so all this talk about the AK article being the only valid repository for information about AK is really about a few people and their idiosyncratic objections to this article. Improve the AK article by the method suggested above and there will be no problem with the AK page relative to the MoMK page.Overagainst (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Let's try again: at least a few editors believe that there is too much detail about things and events which are not central to this topic. Since there is another natural repository for that information (in an article about such things and events), it seems logical to put them there.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What there is at MoMK about Knox is a well-written précis of the very best sources. There is no problem whatsoever with putting that information in the AK page, or expanding on it. What is not on is taking any of the already summarised info about Knox in MoMK out of the article and consigning it to an all too predictable fate at the AK page. Overagainst (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving the Amanda Knox article is to some extent a separate endeavour. Now it exists, because the judgement of the community is that it is a desirable article to have within Wikipedia, it can be worked on by editors interested in improving it. There is (yet) no need to remove information from this article in order to accomplish this. pablo 21:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why the editors are talking about the quality of Knox article. It is completely irrelevent to this conversation. The issue is that editors here think that there is too much detail on tangential information.LedRush (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well agreed–but the conversation here seemed to me to originally hinge on whether the Knox article should be described as "main" pablo 21:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that never made sense to me either (why bother to define "main"? the point was that there is an article dedicated to that subject).LedRush (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

AK page history LedRush has been editing the AK page. Fair enough. He says above "I disagree, both non-essential personal information and the related cases which deal only with Knox should be in the Knox article and only very brief summaries or mentions of such should remain here". So it is those editing the AK page who are criticizing the MoMK article on the grounds of it's alleged poor quality (tangential information). Not the other way about. The so called "tangential information" being complained about is a précis of the best sources: a summary of what the author of every good book on the subject considered relevant information. I simply pointed out that I have no objection to them copying the content at MoMK to the AK page, Critics should concentrate on improving articles, including the AK article. Trying to hamstring the MoMK article by spurious claims that the AK page is the sole dedicated repository for anything but the briefest mantion of AK or claiming that MoMK has irrelevant content when it gives a highly distilled précis of the AK story reffed to the best sources is not the way to improve things.Overagainst (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst, I am beginning to believe you have no interest in these articles other than to insult the other editors. I have edited both the Knox article and this one, with much, much more of my time devoted to this one. This is not an issue of who wrote what or anyone attacking anyone else for their work on an article. Please try not attack individual editors and direct your comments to their arguments. In this case, both editors who have edited both articles and those that have not edited the Knox article have professed an opinion on the content of this article. Attacking these editors personally does not address their concerns.LedRush (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand pablo X's concern, he doesn't want a line in MoMK that says "see main article Amanda Knox". That's fine with me, but I also agree with LedRush that the amount of personal detail on Knox is excessive for this article. I think Overagainst's concern that important personal details about Amanda Knox will be lost is unfounded. If the AK section is pared down, and consensus changes, or something happens to the Amanda Knox article (not likely) we can always add back detail here. Brmull (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not my concern - it's Tinpisa's if anyones. I don't care whether it says 'see main' or 'see also' or whatever. pablo 07:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving an article should not be a single editor's concern. In case, editors feel that Knox's having been brought up with her two sisters or whether her school was a private Jesuit-run school etc. is meaningful for this article, so be it. Removing the tag seems to be the consensus. I'll go ahead and do it. The tag could be re-inserted when it meets the policy. But then all of you must respect this consensus, and not revert me. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

DoneTinpisa (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus? I don't see it. I see one editor (you) who thinks this is an issue, a bunch who don't care much one way or the other, and a side-discussion about the state of the Knox article. pablo 12:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I just can't find any justification for the removal. This is such a minor issue, and it is clearly the way that Wikipedia usually works, so why the big to-do? It should stay.LedRush (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted. It's better to have something pointing to the Knox article than nothing, there's no consensus for the change, plus the 'way ~~Kikipedia~~ Wikipedia works' reason cited by LedRush above. pablo 13:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)typo corrected. pablo 14:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Truly interesting case study on how Kikipedia works! LOL! ;-) Editors here change their stances at the flicker of an eyelid! From 'I don't care .... to why are messing around...' I get your message. Sorry to have volunteered to mess around on WP! Bye! Tinpisa (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, bye. pablo 14:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

LedRush at me,"Overagainst, I am beginning to believe you have no interest in these articles other than to insult the other editors. I have edited both the Knox article and this one, with much, much more of my time devoted to this one." I have never edited the AK page nor have I been to the AK talk page to suggest removing material from it . I only edited this one and contibute to discussion on this one. Is it an insult, LedRush, to point out that you have been editing the AK page and that you have been recently suggesting that the AK page is the only place on WP for anything but the most cursory information about Knox ? Is it an insult to point out that you are claiming that the MOMK is full of irrelevant information. It seems that , if anyone is being insulted its those editors responsible for the recent improvements which you think should not be here at all or are so irrelevant that they should be moved to AK page. As far as I can see you are not suggesting improvements to MoMK but trying to get wholesale deletions of the recent improvements to the page on grounds that are unprecedented. If the creation of a specifically titled page was all that was required for the removal of most information on the specific topic of the title from the text of another older and already highly summarised article then there would be chaos. It is absurd to suggest doing that would be any kind of improvement, in my opinion.Overagainst (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of when I've asked for wholesale deletions of the recent improvements? If not, please strike that statement above.LedRush (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Example 1)"at least a few editors believe that there is too much detail about things and events which are not central to this topic. Since there is another natural repository for that information (in an article about such things and events), it seems logical to put them there.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2011 "

Example 2)""Whoa there, this article already summarises relevant info on AK to the extent it should." It seems at least a few people disagree with that assessment.LedRush (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 "

Example 3)"I am not sure why the editors are talking about the quality of Knox article. It is completely irrelevent to this conversation. The issue is that editors here think that there is too much detail on tangential information.LedRush (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2011 "

Example 4)"I disagree, both non-essential personal information and the related cases which deal only with Knox should be in the Knox article and only very brief summaries or mentions of such should remain here. This article should focus on the subject of this article.LedRush (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 ".

"I disagree both non-essential personal information and the related cases which deal only with Knox should be in the Knox article and only very brief summaries or mentions of such should remain here." . Need I say more. Overagainst (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between 'wholesale deletion' and suggesting that material might be better presented elsewhere. pablo 20:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Additionally, only one of the examples points to specific information, and the related cases information is not new to the article (in fact, they have been there for a long time) so couldn't possibly be an example. So, would you mind striking the comment now? Also, perhaps it's time that your comments become less personal and focus more on the subject matter at hand.LedRush (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of "non-essential personal information and the related cases which deal only with Knox should be in the Knox article and only very brief summaries or mentions of such should remain here." is, by my way of thinking, clearly a call for deletions of content relating to Knox which have been added recently and quite a bit besides. You claimed that you were being insulted and I pointed out that it was you were criticizing and calling for the deletion (as irrelevant) the meritorious edits of others at MoMK. You asked for examples of your own comments calling for substantial deletions from the article and I provided them.Overagainst (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Except that they haven't been added recently. And I haven't asked for wholesale deletion, but summaries (and the movement of such information). So, besides being wrong on every point, you are 100% right.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of the above:

Before

Overagainst - I brought up the issue of the main article template here for the AK page being misleading and was told that there is no problem. Maybe that's right, after all, everybody can compare articles and and see which one is the 'real deal'
LedRush - why bother to define "main"? the point was that there is an article dedicated to that subject
Brmull - If I understand pablo X's concern, he doesn't want a line in MoMK that says "see main article Amanda Knox"...
Pablo - It's not my concern - it's Tinpisa's if anyones. I don't care whether it says 'see main' or 'see also' or whatever

After

LedRush - I just can't find any justification for the removal. It should stay.
Pablo - It's better to have something pointing to the Knox article than nothing.

Is there anything remaining to be said? Tinpisa (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, it is clear that (1) the initial deletion was reverted with edit summary explanation; (2) the ensuing discussion did not create a consensus for deletion; (3) after reinsertment and reversion, there is still no consensus for deletion. Nuff said.LedRush (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, which intial deletion, reinsertment and reversion are you referring to? According to the page history, the tag has been removed only once (and reverted only once) Tinpisa (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong, there were two instances of deletion and restoration before the most recent. #1 [1] and #2 [2]. In his edit summaries, Tarc made very clear why the removal was unwarranted. I, and others, agree with him.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me LedRush! Do you think any one of the following tags would be suitable instead of the main tag used:

{{See|OTHER TOPIC}}
{{See also|OTHER TOPIC}}
{{Hatnote|CUSTOM TEXT}}

Tinpisa (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be have been a little harsh LD, looking over your previous comments you are usually trying to be objective. However you are (IMO) wrong about the relevance of many things and you do want to drastically cut those things - "only very brief summaries or mentions of such should remain here". For example-

Older comment by LedRush."I have stated my reason above. I think the proper place for talking about a slander case against Knox and her parents is in the Knox article, not here. Yes, there is a tangential relationship between the murder (the subject of the article) and the slander case against Knox's parents, but since there is a much better place to discuss that article, why distract from the subject here. Does the current information do harm here? No. I simply think that people would expect to find this info in the Knox article and it fits better there. These cases don't need to be mentioned here at all to understand the murder and the murder trial. However, if you disagree, we could always summarize the cases here and link to the Knox article, which would deal with these Knox-specific cases in more detail.LedRush".

LedRush do you know that the interview that the slander case against Knox's parents by the homicide squad stemmed from appeared 18 months before the slander case was brought. The parents were told they were under investigation 5 days before the Knox trial ended ended. The parents thought it was interesting timing and said they were just answering questions put to them by a reporter (It was Follain although he doesn't mention that in his book). The MoMK article can't be restricted in the way you want and still be a GA, like the slander case much of the 'tangental' info is in truth highly relevant to the MoMK.Overagainst (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Discovery section makes prosecution's points without balance

"One of the Polizia Postale also said he saw glass lying on top of the clothes, as did the head of Perugia's murder squad, Monica Napoleoni, though none of the crime-scene photographs showed this.[30] An 8.8 lb rock that appeared to have been used to smash the window lay in the room inside a Sisley bag.[31]"

The glass on clothes has other explanations, the room had clothes lying around when the window was broken in. Mention the explanations. The rock was not in a bag but on it bag. Overagainst (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The defense claimed that crime scene photos did not show glass on top of clothes. The article says this already. The theory that Filomena left clothes lying around was never made by the defense. I first read about it on a blog. We shouldn't include theories of book authors, journalists, bloggers, or other uninvolved persons. I don't care whether it says the rock was in or on the Sisley shopping bag. Neither one is strictly correct. The theory I've read is that the rock caught the top of the shopping bag and pulled it over, but that shouldn't be included because to my knowledge it wasn't put forward any of the parties in the case. Brmull (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea that we cannot print the opinions of reliable sources and experts, but we can reproduce arguments if/because they were said in court seems horribly prejudicial and in direct conflict with the core values of Wikipedia. We do not allow Italian law, or its rules of evidence, dictate what goes in this article. If reliable secondary sources treat the issue, then we can mention it.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, Death in Perugia, Follain, P. 80 says Mignini saw 'the large stone on the floor" that's what the article should say, not that it was in a bag. Overagainst (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

LedRush you wrongly undid my revert of some unsourced changes that Overagainst made. Do it however you want but I want those edits out of the article now!!!! If you want to start going down the path of allowing RS opinions into the article this article you are going to again make it a POV wasteland. I want to add Katie Crouch's opinion that she could easily climb the wall. Her opinion is just as valid as Burleighs. I also want to add Follain's description of the defense's failed attempt to show that someone could climb into the window. Brmull (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want them out, take them out. If you don't want to be reverted, be more careful with your edits. This is a recurring problem with you.LedRush (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I did want them out, and I did take them out. And you reverted me. And you did not say why, except "be more careful". What does that mean? I manually reverted the article to Berean's version of 15:11. I guess you want me to revert it to Berean's version that included the "ladrona acrobata" stuff? Help me out here. Brmull (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a window grate below that could have offered footholds for an athletic burglar

This was sourced to Burleigh 2011, p. 151-152, she said it would require athleticism and my edit mentioned that caveat which Berean Hunter quoted in an edit summary. How can it be rv'd as unsourced in view of that. Moreover, it has been already been discussed on the talk page.

Anyway, they did a test, watched by Mignini, and a lawyer nominated by the defence was able to climb up and get his hands on the '15 foot high' windowsill. And he took seconds to do it. The source for that is Death in Perugia, Follain, p. 251. Overagainst (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're disingenuously synthesizing sources to create a misleading impression of what the sources said. Requiring athleticism is different than being "a ladrona acrobata or a trained athlete." You can't paraphrase to make it sound easier than it sounds in the source. That's Burleigh. Now here's the full quote from Follain in context:

On the eve of the hearings which would decide whether Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy would stand trial, Raffaele's lawyers played a risky card. They wanted to prove that an intruder -- they didn't say who outright, but it was clear they meant Rudy -- could have broken into the cottage through Filomena's window and then murdered Meredith. To do so, the lawyers asked for permission to enter the garden of the cottage, which was granted.

Raffaele's team chose for the experiment Delfo Berretti, a bearded, long-haired lawyer who had the significant advantage of being more than six feet tall. Watched by Mignini and detectives of the Homicide Squad, Berretti took just a few seconds to climb up the wall and get a hold on Filomena's windowsill. But he could not pull himself up and hung there, stranded, and to avoid any further embarrassment a colleague called out hastily: 'That's enough, that's fine.' Berretti let himself fall back to the ground.

For Mignini, the experiment had backfired on Raffaele's lawyers. Rudy, who was shorter than Berretti, would have been unable to even touch the windowsill, let alone get through the window.

Can you see how by pulling the phrase "took just a a few seconds to climb up the wall and get a hold on Filomena's windowsill" out of context you are totally distorting what the source actually described? This is Scholarship 101 here. Brmull (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit used the quote from Burleigh in the correct context of the possibility of the grating offering footholds and was necessarily deviod of synthesis because ony one source (Burliegh) was used. My edit said the grate could have offered footholds to an athletic burglar. A trained athelete is athletic. I was dissuaded from using Burleigh's words about the lower window grate making the climb quite possible for a "trained athlete" (though Berretti's feat in doing so and grasping the upper windowsill shows using the footholds was likely easier than that Burleigh suggests) by the thought of cries of of synthesis from certain quarters when Follain's description of Guede as a competitive basketball player with a "gym honed body" is given. But I am less impressed by such considerations after recent events. BTW the window was "almost a dozen feet above the ground" (Follain p. 75), not 15 feet up. Note that Follain (P.80) mentions the metal grating over the front door to the downstairs flat as being easy to scale enroute to the terrace, so there is agreement that gratings offer potential footholds for a burglar to reach the upper floor and Follian does not say that this would require much athleticism or training.

"For Mignini, the experiment had backfired on Raffaele's lawyers" For Mignini means that was his take on it. The issue of Berretti's failure to pull himself up after grasping the windowsill is not relevant to the edit you removed (and you stealthly removed a pre existing well-sourced and established mention of the grating while you were at it) The issue is whether there is a reliable source for saying the rear lower window grating could have offered footholds to enable a trained-athlete burglar to merely reach the upper windowsill. I'll discuss the pull up as you've broached it. A trained athlete in Nikes would necessarily be more likely to be able to complete the pull up onto the upper windowsill than a lawyer. Guede is not below average height nor does he have has freakishly short arms as far as I know.Overagainst (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You've decided that a trained-athlete burglar would be better able to pull himself up into the windowsill than the lawyer, and therefore the fact that the lawyer could not pull himself up is irrelevant. For all we know the lawyer in question is a professional rock climber. So the fact that the lawyer could not pull himself up is relevant, and should be included if Burleigh's opinion regarding the grating is retained. Brmull (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not, and never have, proposed putting anything about the pull up, what kind of capabilities it would require and /or who could have done it, in the article. You brought up the issue Brmull. I can only suggest that if you think things irrelevant to the article - then don't bring them up on the talk page! Overagainst (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rv by Tark of well sourced edit on page. Rationale: 'fan club puffery'

I have given Follain's book with the exact page numbers as a source for what you are reverting as fan club puffery. Follain he is no fan of Knox and in fact ends the book with a quote implying she may have been guilty. ABC news story is also linked to for source of verifiable assertions in that edit. Follain is a reputable journalist and faithfully reports what he finds out however. Do you have a better source that Follain, is there one ? Unless you have better reasons for reverting than your subjective (and IMO rather wrongheaded, though that is irrelevant) sensibilities, leave my edits alone please. Overagainst (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fan club puffery" and other trivia doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article no matter the source.TMCk (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 'fan club puffery' wasn't the most diplomatic phrase to use but neverthless, TMC-k is right about the principle. The material that Overagainst added, despite being properly cited, used language that was overblown, excessively flowery and generally over-the-top. If you feel it important to convey these ideas (and I'm far from convinced that the article needs further amplification) then you need to do so using succinct, moderate language. It should avoid any suggestion of side-taking. --Red King (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the very best source for my edits they are faithful paraphrases and the last one is an inline cited quote. Is anyone seriously saying that Follain is a fan of Knox who writes flowery verse on her plight Read what some Knox fans say about him before saying that. (Or just read his book.) They hate him. He is a respected journalist for a major quality newspaper who has written umpteen books. His book Death in Perugia is is by no stretch of the imagination pro-Knox or flowery, just accurate. In the Follain book's acknowledgments top of the list is a 'special debt' to Mignini. He faithfully reports what he sees though and he is the most reliable source for the trials bar none. If you have a better source lets be having it. Your sensibilities carry no weight I have the best source for the edits that were reverted, they are quality reportage from the best source, nothing trivial about them.

It is absurd to claim that the definitive book to date and its coverage of Knox's demeanor and appearance and its change over time should not be referred to in an encyclopedic article when all the other good and reliable sources including the best source mentions that subject as crucial to understanding the case. Encyclopedic content demands that that aspect should be covered. There is abundant support for the investigation and trials being influenced by Knox's demeanor and appearance. Everybody who has written on the case says that the impression created by Knox's facial expressions (not just her behaviour) was instrumental in her coming under suspicion and going to prison It is outlandish to refer to the topic as trivia. Certainly there are things in Follain's book about her behavior and utterances that are hardly favorable to her (an English friend of MK is quoted about those things) which may further explain what happened in line with encyclopedic content, bear in mind AK is a living person though.Overagainst (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"She spoke in English, which the interpreter translated, and which Ficarra wrote down".

This is disputed by Knox so it can't be stated as a fact here.Knox clashes with interpreter over Meredith 'confession' The statement was in perfect Italian by the way and thus is most unlikely to have been a verbatim transcript of the so called interpreter's translation. "Under cross-examination she (Anna Donnino) described her role as that of a 'mediator' rather than a mere translator of words." Overagainst (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say her words were translated verbatim or written down verbatim. But reliable sources (Follain for example) say the statement was read back to her in English before she signed it. Brmull (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"She spoke in English, which the interpreter translated, and which Ficarra wrote down".

So the mediator/interpreter translated her English words into a statement in perfect Italian,(no mean feat) then translated the statement in perfect Italian back into English. Here is what Knox testified to "Taking advantage of her right under Italian law to intervene in her trial for murder, Knox quoted the interpreter as saying that "probably I didn't remember well because I was traumatised. So I should try to remember something else"."Knox clashes with interpreter over Meredith 'confession' Also the 'interpreter' did not say that she just translated "Under cross-examination she (Anna Donnino) described her role as that of a 'mediator' rather than a mere translator of words." The article gives the prosecution version, you have reliable sources for saying that is the police/prosecution version of what the 'interpreter' did but not for saying that is what actually happened. Knox's version must also be given. Overagainst (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So you want to add this: Knox quoted the interpreter as saying that "probably I didn't remember well because I was traumatised. So I should try to remember something else". Under cross-examination the interpreter described her role as that of a "mediator" rather than a mere translator of words. I have no problem with that. Brmull (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the article before "She spoke in English, which the interpreter translated, and which Ficarra wrote down" was added to it. Once you give one side's version you've got to give the other. If "She spoke in English, which the interpreter translated, and which Ficarra wrote down" (the prosecution account) is taken out then there is no reason to give Knox's account. It also would make the article easier to read and clearer. Overagainst (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think whoever added this sentence was trying to emphasize the point that there could have been an error in translation, but if you want to take it out and see if it's still clear, that's okay with me. Brmull (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What's going on here??? I'd agreed you could take out the sentence, "She spoke in English, which the interpreter translated, and which Ficarra wrote down." Instead you added some unsourced nonsense about Donnino being an unqualified interpreter. (I've never read anything that says there is a credentialing process for interpreters.) Then you reverted Berean's clarification about the second floor window. We can best work together if you tell me before making substantial changes that you know I might not like, and I'll do the same. But if we come to an agreement and then you make a change that is different from the one we agreed, odds are I'm going to notice, and revert that change. Cheers! Brmull (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Italian Court of Cassation later found that Knox's human rights had been violated, because the police had not told her of her legal rights, appointed her a lawyer, or provided her an official interpreter; therefore, her statement to police was ruled inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial.[68] " That Donnino has been judged by a court to have been unaccredited to be an interpreter in the interview is a fact which should be known to anyone who has read the article. ref 68 (Donadio, Rachel. "Details Only Add to Puzzle in Umbrian Murder Case", The New York Times, 29 September 2008.) Collaborative editing requires discussion and reliable sources, not for you to be in agreement.

In my edit included the clarification/caveat that a burglar would have to be athletic to use the lower window grating for footholds to effect an entry through the upper window. Now the article just says that "This became an issue later, because the prosecution would argue that Knox and Sollecito had staged the break-in, breaking the window themselves from inside the room; they reasoned that a burglar would not have chosen to enter through that particular window, 15 feet off the ground.[29] ." Someone has removed any mention of the lower window grating ( and what Berean said about it). This someone seems to have been you Brumill at 01:02, 10 November , here is the revision made. This has taken out the important information about the existence of a grating over the lower window which was well sourced to Burleigh 2011, p. 151-152. I would draw attention to the fact that your edit summary did not explain that you had taken all reference to the lower window grating out. Explanation please! Overagainst (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Donnino has been judged by a court to have been unaccredited" is simply false. The NYT article says that Knox's statement was disallowed because she didn't have a lawyer or an interpreter. It doesn't say anything about the interpreter being unaccredited. In fact the NYT article is wrong and is contradicted by many other reliable sources, as well as Knox's own testimony. You are probably not aware that I have been trying for months to get this erroneous statment that you cited removed from the article. But you can't use a statement in Wikipedia to justify adding a similar wrong statement elsewhere in the article. Brmull (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have cited that in the article there is a sourced statement that Knox was not provided with an official interpreter, therefor according to a long established part of the text in the WP article Donnino was not qualified to fulfill that role and my edit was properly sourced. What you believe is not my concern, please don't do anything like this again Brmull.

Brmull, you have failed to give an explaination of you removing my sourced statment about the grating footholds making reaching the window possible for an athletic burglar and much more seriously you have failed to give any explaination of your stealthy removal of the established text's well-sourced mention of the lower window grating being there (added by Slim I beleive) without disclosing the fact in your edit summary. Please don't expect me to go to the trouble of another wearing request for your justification or motives if you do any similar things in future. Overagainst (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

All I did is restore Berean's edit, which was what the talk page was discussing when you decided to go it alone and make your own changes. Now the article has neither Berean's edit nor SV's edit. It has your edit which was not approved by consensus. The editors are still discussing whether Burleigh's opinion belongs in the article or not. I strongly believe it does not, and I have given my reasons in the other section.

As for Donnino, there is no such thing as "long established part of the text" setting precedent for what should be in another part of the article. In fact I was here when that text was added several months ago. I objected. I just haven't gotten around to having it removed because there have been so many other issues to keep an eye on. The fact of the matter, reported in multiple reliable sources, is that Donnino is a police interpreter. No more. No less. Brmull (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Donnino is a police interpreter. No more." Quite so as the article says "The Italian Court of Cassation later found that Knox's human rights had been violated, because the police had not told her of her legal rights, appointed her a lawyer, or provided her an official interpreter; therefore, her statement to police was ruled inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial.[68] " That Donnino has been judged by a Italian Court of Cassation to have been unaccredited to be an interpreter in the interview is in the article. ref 68. Your ex cathedra pronouncements on the article are no justification for taking things out as wrong when they are are referenced to other older well sourced parts of the established consensus text of the article.

No Brmull, here is exactly what you did. You stealthily took out all mention of the existence of A GRATING and didn't divulge this in your edit summary Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I said in my edit summary I was reverting to "Berean's edit of 15:11" which does not mention the grate. There was no attempt to be deceptive. Brmull (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst

I think it would be in the article's best interest if I just report you to AN/I for POV pushing, edit warring, and failure to assume good faith. Exhibit A being this edit where you are warring with both me and Tinpisa despite the reasons for our edits being clearly explained and in good faith. You are also adding a lot of content which, although reliably sourced, is seen by other editors as POV pushing. We can all find reliable sources to back up our personal biases. The challenge is to try to avoid doing that and instead keep the article faithful to what you would get if you could put all reliable sources into a blender and then distill the result down to encyclopedic length. Whether or not Knox had "sad eyes" on such and such a date is obviously not what would be in that distillation, and if you can't see that you need to move on.

I'm going to give you one more chance to be much more consensus-seeking in your edits and then I'm reporting you to AN/I where there is a high likelihood in my opinion that you will ultimately be topic banned by the community. Brmull (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with Tinpisa, everything Tinpisa has done has been above board. I do have a problem with the way you go about things Brumill. For example, Brumill at 01:02, 10 November , here is the revision made. This took out the important information about the existence of a grating over the lower window which was well sourced to Burleigh 2011, p. 151-152. I would draw attention to the fact that Brumill's edit summary did not explain that all reference to the lower window grating out was taken out. I would urge everyone to note that Brmull didn't just remove reference to the possibility of the grating being usable as a 'ladder' (or the weaker term 'footholds' in my tweak) but all mention of the existence of a grating in a stealth edit of much older and established text in which Burleigh is quoted as mentioning the existence of the grating and the possibility of the grating being usable to climb the wall. Brumill, what is your explanation for doing this apparent ninja edit of the well sourced older stable text of the article while giving an edit summary which seems to say you were doing something quite different ?

I'll admit that common sense should have told me that the specific quote "sad eyes" was unencyclopedic and should not have been included, the negative feed back aimed at those specific words is very valid. Overagainst (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Italy and the case

We seem to have some editors who are reacting to the article's account of the prosecution as an attack on Italy. Let us be clear that there are famous cases in Britain and America where people have been locked up for 10, 15 or 20 years and then been shown to have been wrongfully convicted, some of them have been kept in prison for continuing to maintain their innocence. Proving 100% innocence is difficult but in the US and UK convicted people have been proven to be totally innocent after spending a decade or more in prison. There was, what seemed to be, some solid DNA evidence of AK and RS's direct involvement in the crime and the remote possibility that the jury would be immune to prosecution friendly pre-trial publicity and go against the DNA evidence went with Knox's catastrophic courtroom deportment in the early days of the first trial.

In the trial of the second degree Italians showed themselves to be very competent and discharged their duties effectively. An Italian judge ordered an independent review of the DNA evidence, Italian experts delivered the review and the jury decided the original conviction should be reversed and acquitted the defendants. Trials of the second degree are there to prevent innocent people being convicted because occasionally mistakes are made at the first trial; sometimes not everybody does their job properly, as is true in all countries. Overagainst (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Overagainst, I don't know if think I am one of the editors you refer too. Let me re-assure you that I am neither for nor against Knox or Kercher; neither for nor against USA, UK or Italy or any other country. I am spending time on this article, to improve my understanding of WP rules, policies, guidelines and how it operates. In case a conviction would be more likely solely on the basis of media misreporting, the appeals court would not have exonerated K & S totally. This vindicates my stand. There are a lot of countries that still follow the jury system. Juries are sequestered only in very high-profile cases. The assumption that it is possible to influence the jury through the media, seriously undermines the judicial process in all those countries. It is a very strong and sweeping statement, and must be used with caution. Thanks! Tinpisa (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

de Maistre:"In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him."

I would hope any Italian would back his country against foreigners, it's the natural reaction (although sometimes misleading). For example in my country a while back there was a major scandal which involved a woman being accused of misconduct on the basis of a fingerprint, the defence called in US experts who claimed the fingerprint had been misidentified and she was acquitted. My reaction was that our experts had been right (I'd heard rumors about the woman too) but it later emerged they were wrong. I assumed Knox was guilty because of the pretrial and trial publicity, I didn't realize the differences between the Italian system and ours. Prosecutors use pretrial publicity in Italy in a way that would be inconceivable here. The Italian system has its good points and works well enough, as long as everyone does their job properly.

You're right the conviction at the initial trial was not solely based on pretrial publicity I tried to make it clear that there was what seemed to be concrete DNA evidence against both AK and RS, not much but it was there, it later emerged that it was most likely contamination due to bad lab work. ( Here is a blog post UNDERSTANDING THE INDEPENDENT DNA EXPERTS’ REPORT IN THE AMANDA KNOX CASE (PART 2) the guy has no axe to grind and increases his credibility with me when at one point he says the Italian independent DNA experts took a conservative approach to some aspects of proof in their report. However reading between the lines it seems to me he is pretty much of the opinion that cross contamination between the samples being analysed in the police lab was responsible for the DNA that seemed to incriminate AK and RS on the bra clasp). Overagainst (talk)

Category "Overturned convictions in Italy"

I have removed the category; it was pointless and divisive. pablo 20:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

'Category:Overturned convictions in Italy' seems to have been created for the MoMK and AK articles.Overagainst (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Overagainst! IMO, there are two aspects to a crime - how it took place (including the actors who participate in it) and its motive. In this case, the motive remains unknown. Second, the re-construction is vague (many versions of the reconstruction in many books). The Supreme Court has also mentioned that Guede was not alone (others unknown). But, I am neutral to whether the category is kept or not (I see its been removed). Tinpisa (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Amanda and Raffaele were acquitted by Italian justice of carrying a knife, stealing Meredith's two mobile phones and simulating a crime. Why can't you see that someone who is capable of murder and rape is also likely capable of breaking into a house and stealing - all by himself.Overagainst (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The category was Unsolved Murders, not petty crime (stealing mobile phones etc). And K & S were uninvolved in the murder (so you shouldn't have mentioned them). Anyway, the issue is a deadhorse now - no point flogging it. Tinpisa (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Supreme Court simply denied Guede's appeal, they gave no judgement about whether Guede was alone and were in no position to have done so at that point because it was before the AK and RS appeal was finished . To Benedetti (on Skype on the 18th Dec 2007) Guede said he was there but had not done it. He said AK was not there and that he didn't know RS. To Matteini on 7th Dec he said there was a man he didn't recognise with someone else he never saw On 26 March 2008 Mignini questioned Guede and Guede again denied ever having ever met RS. At his trial he said Meredith had let him in and AK (who had a key) had rang the doorbell. I think the correct animal metaphor is sick puppy.Overagainst (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read the original supreme court judgement (the judgement that confirmed his 16 years sentence) carefully again is all I can advise, Overagainst. A judgement carries more weight than the proceedings in court. And there's no point flogging this deadhorse now. Let us leave it to rest. Tinpisa (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is all speculation and OR. What is needed is a RS stating that the case was closed or still open. Until there is one saying so the cat should be left out by default.TMCk (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What is needed is for people to read the article. 2.1 Italian criminal procedure "With conviction at the second grade, it is possible to appeal to the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) only on technical grounds or on issues of the interpretation of law.[38] Written briefs are prepared and reviewed in camera (i.e. there is no more testimony or verbal presentations) and either accepted, meaning the case is sent back to the appeals court for retrial, or rejected, in which case the verdict is final and the individual receives a sentence, with credit for time served while in cautionary detention."

Court of Cassation (Italy) "The Court of Cassation cannot overrule the trial court's interpretation of the evidence; rather, it corrects a lower court's interpretation or application of the law". So the significance of the "Supreme Court' for the facts of the case is zero. Overagainst (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TMCk. This discussion is premature. When a RS explains why the case is open or closed, solved or unsolved, we will revisit the issue. Brmull (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think its wrong to add this category to the article. As Overagainst said, read section 2.1 : After the trial of the first grade (primo grado), if convicted the individual is referred to as defendant or accused (imputato), and is not considered guilty until convicted at the trial of the second grade (secondo grado). In Italy, an accused is held convicted and considered guilty only at the end of the trial of the second grade. Guede was the only person convicted and held guilty. But his conviction was not overturned by the Supreme Court. K&S were not guilty, so the category is improper. Any connotation to the word 'conviction' should be with reference to Italy, as the category is Overturned convictions in Italy. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to article for 2.2.6 Prosecution

They opted for a full trial, open to the media, which began on 16 January 2009 before Judge Giancarlo Massei, Deputy Judge Beatrice Cristiani, and six lay judges at the Corte d'Assise of Perugia.[79] On the first day in court Knox took her lawyer's advice to avoid any interaction with Sollecito, however she appeared relaxed and even cheerful, smiling at her lawyers, guards and interpreter.Follain P.267 John Follain writes that during breaks that day Knox's behaviour shocked many in the courtroom. She chatted to her lawyers or to her guards gesticulating Italian-style, smiling and giving a few short laughs as she did so. Bravo! she exclaimed at one point, jabbing a finger towards the chest of one of the guards standing behind her.(Follain p. 268)

Prosecutors attributed it to a supposedly over-confident personality, one commented "she probably doesn't realize what she's risking. The instances of smiling and laughter were captured in photographs and widely publicised. Knox later told the prison chaplain that nervous tension had caused her inappropriate behaviour.(Follain p. 268) She was warned by her lawyers of the negative impression she had created, at the second day of the trial her deportment was quiet and serious. However, on St.Valentines Day Knox dismayed her defence team by wearing a T shirt, with the message "all you need is love" in large red lettering, to court.(Follain P279-80) The prosecution screened a 20 minute animated reconstruction of the murder with effects such as the screen turning red when the fatal injury was inflicted and photos of Kerchers wounds, it faded out to the sound of a recording of Sollecito's actual call to the police and left many in court shaken.(Follain p.347-348) An observer sympathetic to the prosecution thought Mignini had lost his temper when cross examining Knox and been largely ineffective as a result. However Knox was pointedly questioned for hours on numerous details, such as whether she had touched a particular light switch or timing and location of a mobile call, by Judge Massei and often could only reply "I don't remember".(Follain, P.322-330) Lumumba's lawyer used vituperative language about Knox at the trial calling her "unclean on the outside because she was dirty on the inside."(Follain P.351)

Both sets of defence lawyers requested the judges and jury to order independent reviews of evidence including DNA, foot and shoe prints, and the compatibility of the wounds with the alleged murder weapon, however Massei anounced they had refused the request. In final pleas to the court Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito's high profile lawyer, strongly defended Knox as "a weak and fragile girl" who had been "duped by the police." Knox's lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, said what the defence teams had previously only hinted at, telling the court that DNA evidence against his client was the result of inadvertent contamination in the forensic laboratory, but he was unable to offer proof of the assertion. Ghirga pointed to text messages between Knox and Kercher as showing that they had been friends.(Follain 353-358)

Overagainst (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, this change is not warranted, as it puts a bias on the article towards Knox. Knox has been exonerated. So has been Sollecito. There is no need to give details of the demeanor of Knox or Sollecito or Guede during the trial, as it adds nothing to the article on the murder of Kercher. Tinpisa (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

WP articles would end up awfully dry (and unread) if any account of the reactions of human beings to other were deemed to add nothing. You wanted the AK page to have no main article status, now you are seem to be saying that this article should not mention the interactions of a major subject involved and be a wearing laundry list of the results of her trials. The court evidence against the defendant mentioned and the article ending with 2 of them suddenly being released on appeal.

That would be misleading. The subject of the proposed text being reaction of the court to Knox's demeanor is difficult to cover in a encyclopedic way, but I think it can be done and should be done. Some encyclopedic content people will be interested in reading, that does not mean such content has bias towards the subject (or against it). Some things are interesting when described in an encyclopedic way. I'm trying to explain what happened in an encyclopedic way . If what happened had a a non-trivial amount to do with people were perceptions of Knox's behaviour in court then that has to be mentioned or the article is not a good one.

I don't know why Knox's demeanor and appearance especially on the first day of the trial should not be referred to at all in an encyclopedic article when all reliable sources including the best sources mentions that subject as important to understanding the result of the trial. Encyclopedic content does not mean giving the result of legal proceedings. Important aspects of the case should be covered in the WP way. There is abundant support for the investigation and trials being influenced by Knox's demeanor and appearance. The best sources (Follain, Burleigh) who has written on the case says that the impression created by Knox's smiling and laughing in court had a considerable effect on observers. To my knowledge no one has ever said about Guede that his demeanor in court shocked observers so why would the article mention his demeanor ? Knox's demeanor is mentioned only because it has been adjudged important by the best sources.Overagainst (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This and this (in Italian) talk about Guede's behaviour. Similarly, there would be sources for Sollecito's behaviour. There is a difference between the way a book or a newspaper covers a subject, and the way an encylopedia does. The idea behind what you are stating has already been phrased as All these traits, Burleigh writes—including her bubbly personality and tendency to practice yoga stretches at inappropriate times—contributed to her downfall in Perugia, making her more reticent flatmates critical of her, and the police suspicious in the article. Giving a detailed account of her behaviour in the courtroom is unnecessary. It could be OK on the AK page (which should be expanded and made more detailed, IMO). Anyway, this is just my opinion. Tinpisa (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not intended to give a detailed account of Knox at the trial, it's a short passage dealing what the best sources (Burleigh, Follian) say was an important aspect of the trial - how the impression she made in court, especially on the first day when she was smiling and laughing during breaks, affected the way the court perceived her character. It is every bit as relevant as mobile phone and computer activity. I'm not aware of any suggestion that the result of Guede's or Sollecito's trial for the MoMK was affected by their demeanor in court. It has been suggested a great deal, by the best sources, that trial of Knox was affected by her demeanor so an article on the murder of Meredith Kercher will touch on that aspect of Knox's trial for the murder, hopefully I'll be able to do so in an brief and encyclopedic way.Overagainst (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a sentence in BLP: When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. I do not know whether this applies for this (and Knox's) article. Experienced editors may advise me, please. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't detailed or a bio. It's an very abbreviated account of her lengthy trial for the the MoMK, (surely on topic for this article) which draws from the best source.Overagainst (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The existence of the Amanda Knox article is evidence that editors believe Knox is a public figure who is notable in her own right. The BLP concerns you describe are more applicable to someone like Filomena. However we can debate how much description of Knox's before is appropriate for the article. I agree there should be some, but we should be careful not to state any opinion in Wikipedia's voice. Let's take a look at the edit in question:

John Follain writes that during breaks that day Knox's behaviour shocked many in the courtroom. She chatted to her lawyers or to her guards gesticulating Italian-style, smiling and giving a few short laughs as she did so. "Bravo!" she exclaimed at one point, jabbing a finger towards the chest of one of the guards standing behind her.[81] Prosecutors attributed it to a supposedly over-confident personality, one commented "she probably doesn't realize what she's risking". The instances of smiling and laughter were captured in photographs and widely publicised. Knox later told the prison chaplain that nervous tension had caused her inappropriate behaviour.[82] She was warned by her lawyers of the negative impression she had created, at the second day of the trial her deportment was quiet and serious. However, on St.Valentines Day Knox dismayed her defence team by wearing a T shirt, with the message "all you need is love" in large red lettering, to court.[83] The prosecution presented a 20 minute animated reconstruction of the murder with effects such as the screen turning red when the fatal injury was inflicted and photos of Kercher's wounds, it faded out to the sound of a recording of Sollecito's actual call to the police and left many in court shaken.[84] An observer sympathetic to the prosecution thought Mignini had lost his temper when cross examining Knox and been largely ineffective as a result. However Knox was pointedly questioned for hours on numerous details, such as whether she had touched a particular light switch or timing and location of a mobile call, by Judge Massei and often could only reply "I don't remember".[85] Lumumba's lawyer used vituperative language about Knox at the trial calling her "unclean on the outside because she was dirty on the inside."[86]

I think "gesticulated Italian-style" is kind of insulting to Italians. If that's what Follain said, then it should be specifically attributed to Follain. Otherwise reword.
Exlaiming Bravo! etc. is kind of the same thing as gesticulating Italian style, so this sentence seems redundant to me.
The 20 minute reconstruction took place on 21 November 2009 so maybe do a paragraph break and give the date, to help the reader stay oriented.
Left the court shaken should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
An observer sympathetic to the prosecution is not prominent enough that we should care what his opinion is. Definitely remove.
Vituperative should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Furthermore I sort of think repeating this inflammatory quote crosses the line to being unencyclopedic. At this point you may think of the NOTCENSORED policy, which is true, but practically speaking if something is going to be a magnet for controversy, it might be better just to paraphrase that Lumumba's lawyer was highly critical of Knox in closing arguments, calling her a she-devil, etc., and be done with it.

These are just my initial thoughts and more input would be welcome. Brmull (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

How could "gesticulated Italian-style" be insulting? She was speaking in Italian and used gestures commonly used by Italians. Other people gesture differently. (EG The thumbs up sign means something in Italy that it does not mean elsewhere) It is a direct quote from Follain.
It was a combination of an exuberant exclaimation and gesture, it is an inline cited direct quote as indicated by 'John Follain writes' and the para break.
The trial chronology is complicated by the fact that there were long breaks, giving dates or using para breaks for every day is not practicable in a brief account of what was notable .
It was "Left many in the court shaken" reffed to Follain. A good enough source for that, not subjective.
It's refed to Follain an excellent source for what those sympathetic to the prosecution thought and he obviously knows the observer is prominent enough for us to care.
It's referenced to Follain, he actually uses the word "virulent" a biological metaphor which I think is stronger wording. Another source for characterising what Carlo Pacelli said about Knox as 'vituperative', Telegraph report "Carlo Pacelli launched a furious tirade against her [...] brutal character assassination ". Calling this 'highly critical' would not be correct as he went much further than calling her a 'she devil', as Follain and the Telegraph report makes clear it was actually "harshly abusive criticism" which is the definition of 'vituperative'.

Overagainst (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, a more critical problem is that the content is vague and a little chatty.

Gestured "italian-style" - I have no idea what this mean"
"Bravo!" she exclaimed at one point, jabbing a finger towards the chest of one of the guards standing behind her. - are we writing a novel? :) One thing to bear in mind with WP articles is that we are not using the narrative voice (even if some articles have chronological sections). As it is; the incident feels randomly chosen with no point to it, best to summarise the types of behaviours regarded as "shocking".
deportment, vituperative; better to stick to less poetic language. Words such as those only really serve to raise the reading level required to understand the content.
However Knox was; the "however" doesn't seem to link to the previous statement, and as it reads seems to be making a point (though I can't figure out what exactly).
pointedly; concerns me - almost certainly needs a source. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Some people don't know Italians have their own gestures, it is mentioned Knox was gesturing as Italians gesture while chatting and at one point she exclaimed Bravo! while jabbing a finger.

It's an in-text attributed quote from Follain (like I said) The bravo incident he obviously selected to epitomise what people found shocking about Knox's behaviour that day. I think you are confusing an account of what happened that includes a description of affect display, (or incongruent affect) with subjective attribution.

'Deportment' is a workmanlike word not a poetic word, not by any stretch. Vituperative is appropriate for "harshly abusive criticism".

"She was warned by her lawyers of the negative impression she had created, at the second day of the trial her deportment was quiet and serious. However, on St.Valentines Day Knox dismayed her defence team by wearing a T shirt, with the message "all you need is love" in large red lettering, to court.[82]." Pretty clear to me the way 'however' links.

Follain,(p327), uses 'incisive' for the judge's questions, refs are not given for individual words. Overagainst (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How did you get from my comment about the sentence However Knox was.. to discussing However, on St.Valentines :) You are right, that one makes sense. Some people don't know Italians have their own gestures; indeed. I still have no idea what "Italian-style gestures" are, though, or what they mean. We do not have an article to link to as far as I can find, so we should explain what is meant (what are Italian-style gestures, what do they mean, what is Italian about them). How did you transform the description "incisive" to "pointedly"; they are entirely different descriptions! Regardless, if we are using Folain's view of the trial we shouldn't just swap words around, we should use his words and attribute them. At the very least it is intellectually dishonest to pass off description/opinion as his if he didn't actually make it! This is the important thing about not expressing opinions.... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Incisive is defined as "penetrating; cutting; biting; trenchant", related to the pointed teeth, incisors, and has synonyms of "acid, mordant; sarcastic, sardonic" and is often defined as "biting". Pointedly is extremely accurate.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Italian-style is self explanatory, it means in the manner of Italians. English Collins Dictionary - English Definition gives 'cutting or incisive' for pointedly. No exact correspondence between words is possible or desirable in a concise and faithful paraphrase. The best source is drawn on for a descriptive account, that's not the same as reproducing the author's views or opinion. The reader would need to go to Follain's book for a full version with that kind of content. Overagainst (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The implication of "pointedly" is that he was making some point... which is why the word worries me. The core issue, though, is that it very much is an opinion of the Judge. The fact is that the Judge asked questions; the manner in which he did so is subjective to the observer :) it means in the manner of Italians; and what does this mean? What are the key features about Italian-style gestures that have relevance to the context; is it saying they were very minimal and not in context with her mood, or that they were offensive (such as sticking fingers up), or flamboyant etc. My concern is that this material is slanted in a particular way, following a narrative style and is not an improvement to the content. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think my comprehension of what is required for writing encyclopedic English is as good as yours. No, I'm not trying to write, as you patronisingly suggested, 'a novel'. I have taken the trouble to answer your previous objections but in the latest one "it means in the manner of Italians; and what does this mean?" I think you are following such a loosely associated line of argument that is difficult to understand.Overagainst (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you cannot see that "gesticulated Italian-style" = ' ... in the manner of Italians' is problematic (note this is one example only) then hey, have at it. There are zillions of articles mentioning people of the other countries of the world that that could be degraded similarly with your input. pablo 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant no offence I was inveigled into saying, during a wearing discussion, 'in the manner of'. In the actual text the context is not an Anglo Saxon judging an Italian at all. It's an American who is making a terrible impression on Italians. Obviously if Italians spoke and gestured in the excitable way Knox was doing it would not have been so damaging for her. It's a quote from Follain and an important part of the account of the trial.Overagainst (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the lede needs balance for the US reaction, something about the protests from within Italy about the prosecution of AK and RS. For example " A group of Italian members of parliament warned that the justice system was being brought into disrepute by the way the case was being conducted'. Overagainst (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Giulia Bongiorno notable enough to create an English language WP page?Overagainst (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. "Italian style" assumes that the entire audience will immediately know, and agree with, what that means. It cannot be stated in WP's voice that this is as a matter of fact Italian style. As far as the article on Giulia Bongiorno goes, no idea. Do it, see what happens. pablo 22:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It was an attributed quote not WP's voice that that said 'Italian style' but as there is a credible objection and it is not really necessary maybe the phrase can go.Overagainst (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor point, but we can't use ellipses to remove something that is objectionable. Some other workaround will be necessary, with my preference being that the sentence is unnecessary in light of the extensive description that follows. Brmull (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To cut it short: The phrase was removed [3] and I would think that if there are no objections this one is solved.TMCk (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

So we can remove the ellipses? It makes no sense to use ellipses this way. Brmull (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would remove that too.TMCk (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this edit resolving your concern?TMCk (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The objectionable phrase was removed. So why have two sentences been run together and third sentence chopped entirely from the quote? of style Quotations "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation [...]Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text. Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible or guttural speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text."Now the article says " John Follain writes that during breaks that day Knox's behaviour shocked many in the courtroom by the way she chatted to her lawyers and to her guards, smiling and giving a few short laughs as she did so" That not a proper sentence or the proper way to frame a paraphase. I suppose we will get the removal of "John Follain writes" next as it is no longer a proper quote then the paraphase will be chopped down further. It seems that reasonable objections are being used as a wedge to delete the text. There was agreement about one phrase, then when that criticism was heeded and the phrase was removed a sentence with the straight description of one incident which is mentioned by the best source because it epitomised some notable behavior is deleted without discussion except between TMCk and Brmull. TMCk's edit which was ostensibly done to remove ellipses leaves ellipses in and takes out a whole sentence with no ellipses namely "Bravo!" she exclaimed at one point, jabbing a finger towards the chest of one's the guards standing behind her" - then Brmull takes out the ellipses and alter puctuation in what's left turning it into one run-together sentence.

So we start with -

"John Follain writes that during breaks that day Knox's behaviour shocked many in the courtroom. She chatted to her lawyers or to her guards ... smiling and giving a few short laughs as she did so. "Bravo!" she exclaimed at one point, jabbing a finger towards the chest of one of the guards standing behind her."

And end up with_

"John Follain writes that during breaks that day Knox's behaviour shocked many in the courtroom by the way she chatted to her lawyers and to her guards, smiling and giving a few short laughs as she did so."

I am getting a little tasked by what seems to be tag team (TMCk and Brmull ) ninja editing. Overagainst (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst. Cut out your bad faith nonsense.TMCk (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm; still have deep concerns over the newly inserted prose:

Why are we using ellipsis in unquoted prose - I don't have the book but it feels like this is a direct quote and thus must be annotated as such (or reworded to avoid copyright violation). If it isn't a direct quote then surely cutting the text should simply have lead to a rewording.
"Bravo!" nonsense has been inserted, seemingly against the above consensus. What does this add to the neutral description of the matter? As I mentioned above the tone and style of that sentence appears to be more in the style of a novel or narrative prose than an encyclopaedic article. Again; if we are quoting and example from Follain then we should just quote it - however I question to need of this example.

I feel this text has been forced in against consensus and without addressing the concerns. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so using Google books I checked and I see the whole sentence under dispute is a quote directly from the book. Please remember that such things must always be quoted to avoid copyright violation. I don't have the book so could someone check the remainder of the current prose (changing the odd word still counts as problematic) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant & others that the Bravo needs to stay out. That section is/was overly chatty and we need to keep to the facts of the case. This is an article not a novella.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

,Berean Hunter, why do you say the unvarnished descriptions of what actually happened is chatty, and why talk about works of fiction? Are you accusing me of making things up ? We are giving established facts. She did make the exclamation and gesture in court where she was on trial for murder, it was highly relevant to how she was perceived and had something to do with her subsequently being found guilty and every book on the case, including those that are anti-Knox, says so. My ref is from Follain, a reliable source. If you can give a more reliable source (or any source) that says Knox's deportment in court was irrelevant to the verdict of her her trial for the MoMK, lets be having it. Well can you?

Errant,I may have reverted to a version without the ref by mistake. It started off as an in-text attributed and inline cited direct quote as indicated by 'John Follain writes' and the ref. My understanding is when quoting more than one sentence you don't put quotation marks round it, you in text attribute it. It is still a direct quote with ellipses replacing two words which were taken out (because there was a credible objection and the omission of the 2 words did not alter the sense). If this is 'problematic' please cite the WP policy or guidelines that make it so. Re "Bravo!" 'nonsense' It is not clear to me why you consider something nonsense when it is a neutral description of an actual incident. If you consider the incident should not be mentioned all I can say is that sources on the case consider Knox's demeanor and deportment (such as the exclamation and gesture) during the first trial highly relevant to the outcome. Encyclopedic and interesting are not mutually exclusive not should we try and make them so on WP. Overagainst (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant's edit summaries bolded and rebutted "nothing in the source indicates who the investigator was (that I can see)"-The text does not purport to give the identity of the investigator beyond that he was close to the prosecution so I don't see the justification for chopping that text. Follain's book gives accounts of what Mignini's thoughts were, obviously only Mignini could have given him that. Follain was given access . The context clearly indicates it is a senior detective or possibly a prosecutor, in the list of Follain's acknowledgments from the top are Mignini, Comodi, (pros) then Profazio, Napoleoni (detectives) Exactly who it was is not necessary for my wording . Anyway, your going off on tangents discussing that. It certainly was "an investigator close to the prosecution."

I now have the source - it says "an investigator", nothing there indicates who he was or who he was "close to". Stick to the source please. The rest of your "rebuttal" here is speculation and nothing we can rely on. Please review the concept of original research. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"behaviour" seems vague and accusatory - rephrase)" While you think may think behaviour seems and accusatory word (in this context). It just it's actually neutral. You've got "the Judge's questions on behalf of the court were "relentless"". Follain's book is written very much from the prosecution side so direct quoting as extensively as your edit does from it is not neutral. What did the defence team think? You won't read that in Follain so you are making it too one sided by relying on direct quoting of him. And over-quoting I think. The questioning of Knox was so detailed it was of a kind that the defence would have objected to if the prosecution had done it but they didn't dare make interventions against the judge as Follain says. And the judge actually thought up novel arguments for the prosecution with a line of questioning that no one had envisioned; why she came back from RS's which was heated to the cold cottage to shower, wrong-footing Knox who didn't know what he was getting at. Questioning her story again. So the judge's behaviour with questions and comment on the answers very much favoured the prosecution as Follain, and my edit, made clear

behaviour was entirely ambiguous - did it refer to the questions, did it mean how he acted in court? I mulled over that section of the book for a while and in the end simply quoting the investigators views (which don't forget is what the sentence is all about :)) seemed the simplest resolution. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Unsure what use that sentence has; in the source it is just part of the narrative and doesn't add to our understanding That's your explanation for deleting the bit about the judge making a remark out loud in court when questioning Knox. The judge didn't just ask questions he commented on replies "you don't remember" said aloud of Knox's replies is mentioned by Follain. Hence a reliable source indicates the judges utterance was intended to be thought significant in a way not favorable to Knox.

It's part of Follain's narrative, but there was no particular context to the quote. There is no need to have a blow-by-blow; if Follain makes a specific point about the Judge's comments/questions then lets reflect that and leave the narrative to Follain. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"better opening (inspired by advice at WP:SAY), better order) (undo)". Clarification, your interpretation of that advice, they don't get specific. The place to get specific advice on the article is at the article talk page. It's also a good place to propose edits, ie discuss before you do them. Overagainst (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss every edit; indeed you discussed an addition above, recieved negative comments and added it anyway. Strikes me you are happy to use the process only insofar as it works to your advantage...

My understanding is when quoting more than one sentence you don't put quotation marks round it, you in text attribute it.; notes on this here Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation_marks; quotes do need quotation marks.

If you consider the incident should not be mentioned all I can say is that sources on the case consider Knox's demeanor and deportment (such as the exclamation and gesture) during the first trial highly relevant to the outcome. ; Ok, so lets say that - rather than narrating portions of the trial, this is the concept of summary style which we use here on WP --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant, you've deleted everything about Knox's demeanor in her trial despite the sources saying that it was significant. And you've taken out the point that Follain made about the judge's behaviour, just disregarding the reliable source provided. Your're editing is opinion based and while you quote from Follain you are not using the full ref, I give Follain P332-330 as source for my edit. You don't even seem to have access to those most of the refed pages yet deleted text that is sourced to them and refed a page you can access. How do you know the pages given do not support the edit and where does it say you can decide that without reading it? It's all highly subjective, what your're trying to eliminate from the article is very much supported in the best sources. Give reliable sources for an edit. Subjective emotional reactions and idiosyncratic definitions of words are not sources. There is no justification for restricting others edits to the sourcing you have chosen to restrict your reading to, or for deleting well sourced text from the article. Overagainst (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant, you've deleted everything about Knox's demeanor in her trial; that wasn't me... and as I mentioned, I now have the book (the Kindle is a wondrous invention :)). And you've taken out the point that Follain made about the judge's behaviour; what? In the part where he repeats back the phrase? Follain doesn't make any explicit point here (and if he did, we would use that, not some random narrative) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant you are free to define 'narrative' in your own way, it's a idiosyncratic way IMO. Countless WP featured articles contain similar text to what you are protesting about and deleting Rosewood massacre. Some subjects can not be covered without what you call narrative. You might as well say the the MoMK is not a suitable subject for an article as restrict it in that way. And the MoMK article was restricted in that way for a long time. Did you like the article better last year? Overagainst (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Death of Ian Tomlinson

Narrative ? Overagainst (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to renew my objection to the use of an opinion by an unnamed "investigator". I know it's in the source, but I don't think anonymous quotes are appropriate for a tertiary source like Wikipedia, regardless of what they say, although incredibly there doesn't seem to be any official guideline on this. If it must be used, it should say "Follain quoted one investigator as saying..." Brmull (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant official guidline Wikipedia:Citing sources, In-text attribution

In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks); indirect speech (a source's words without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing. It can also be used when loosely summarizing a source's position in your own words. It avoids inadvertent plagiarism, and helps the reader see where a position is coming from. An inline citation should follow the attribution, usually at the end of the sentence or paragraph in question..Overagainst (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2011

Using blogs as sources

Reference [3] cites these two blogs. I am not sure if blogs would be OK as sources in this article. Moreover, the blogs are used to support the view thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur. There is nothing in the first blog which supports this claim. The only phrase in the NYT blog that comes close to supporting this claim is “This is their O.J. Simpson trial — it’s that big,” said Paul Ciolino told me Friday, a private investigator, who counsels for the Innocence Project, a group advocating on behalf of those they believe are wrongfully convicted. I do not think this supports the text in the leed. I propose to edit the sentence to just: Some observers criticized the media for not describing the case accurately and dispassionately in the leed. But would the same sources be OK to use? Any suggestions? Overagainst (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinpisa (talk • contribs) 13:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, is the short answer. Ledes don't need refs and are not tied to the refs in the same way as the text. In fact ledes are not really supposed to have refs. A good lede is one that summarises the article and makes the reader want to know more. There is abundant support in the article and article refs for the lede text "Some observers criticized the media for not describing the case accurately and dispassionately, thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur". I wouldn't change the lede on the grounds you suggest but taking the blog refs off seems reasonable. For blogs as refs the quality of the outlet and the status of the writer also matters I would think, some poeples opinion is quotable as an opinion in and encyclopedic article.

"With Lumumba in the clear, the prosecution simply substituted Guede for Lumumba, but retained the allegations against Knox and Sollecito." That's ok I think, that correctly conveys how the prosecution kept the orgy allegation even though there was good reason to thinK Guede may have acted alone. Raffaele Sollecito insisted that he had never knew Guede, Knox hardly knew him. No trustworthy witness ever saw them together.Overagainst (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The phrase thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur is unsustantiated in the article also. The lead is supposed to summarise the article. Tinpisa (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not followed the trial, so could you clarify if the orgy allegation was made for Lumumba as well (charging the three for the murder together). If not, your assumption would be wrong. Tinpisa (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

About cutting the lede, I think you need to look at ref 2 a bit more closely [4] "After a few weeks in Perugia, I saw that there was something very wrong with the narrative of the murder that the authorities and the media were presenting. There was almost no material evidence linking Knox or her boyfriend to the murder, and no motive, while there was voluminous evidence — material and circumstantial — implicating a third person, a man, whose name one almost never read in accounts of the case. It became clear that it wasn't facts but Knox — her femaleness, her Americaness, her beauty — that was driving the case. In person, in prison and in the media, Knox was subjected to all manner of outlandish, misogynistic behavior. A prison "doctor" (he has never stepped forward publicly) tested a sample of Knox's blood and then informed her she was HIV-positive, prompting Knox to list every man she'd had sex with. Authorities passed the names of seven men to reporters from the British tabloid pack, who printed it. Soon thereafter, Knox was told the doctor was mistaken and she didn't have AIDS. Outside prison walls, Italian criminologists were opining in the media and eventually on the witness stand that because the body had been covered with a blanket, the killer was surely female because such an act was evidence of feminine "pieta." Finally, there were the prosecution's operatic closing arguments, repeated almost verbatim in the appeal that ended last week. Knox was a "luciferina" — a she-devil — capable of a special, female duplicity. She was "dirty on the inside.""

Too many people were willing to believe lurid slurs about Amanda Knox "There are many deeply troubling facets to this case. But an important one, surely, is the degree to which it exposes so many humans as only too happy to believe lurid and destructive slurs served up by a tabloid media culture that they all know – or should know – exists to make money from peddling damaging sensation, the more outrageous the better" Overagainst (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you asked here is a report based on a judges account of the earliest prosecution theories about sexual motives but please remember that it is a load of crap the posed pic of AK was for a photography project of her sis, from a time when Knox didn't wear makeup). which slanders the victim. Kercher was a monogamous girl and Lumumba was old enough to be her father the whole thing was absurd. The prosecution altered the motives they were suggesting quite a bit until the trial but it always had a big sexual component. By the way Lumumba's lawyer was the main offender in the court in calling Knox names 'dirty in the outside becauase she is dirty in the inside' ect ect. Anyway while you're pondering all this could you revert that cut to the lede and put 'simply substituted bit' back in, in the meantime.Overagainst (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

My dear Overagainst, there are two parts to your objection: (1) deleting the phrase "thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur" from the lead; and (2) my rephrasing "police substituted Lumumba with Guede". For (1), is there any reliable secondary source quoted in the article for the assertion that not describing the case accurately and dispassionately by the media makes wrongful convictions more likely to occur? (In fact, this does not seem to be in the article itself - "judges not sequestered" does not imply that wrongful convictions are more likely.) If yes, I would be most happy in putting the phrase back in. With (2), you have convinced me to revert my edit, which I shall do so now. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinpisa asked "is there any reliable secondary source quoted in the article for the assertion that not describing the case accurately and dispassionately by the media makes wrongful convictions more likely to occur? (In fact, this does not seem to be in the article itself - "judges not sequestered" does not imply that wrongful convictions are more likely.)" Does it ? It's not just judges it's the jury who read the media, and they decide on guilt right? The list of lovers being tricked out her and appearing in the media is in the article and reffed.

Analysis: Knox case"With no contempt of court protections, the names and even photographs of suspects frequently appear in newspapers long before their trials". And juries read rumors floated by the prosecution.

You are ignoring Nina Burleigh, an excellent secondary source, and her book is cited many times, here is a recent article by her on the case to get an idea.

Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher and the media"I arrived assuming Knox was guilty, but within a month realised that most of what I'd been reading about – how she and her boyfriend were holding a mop and bucket at the door when the cops arrived, how her boyfriend googled "bleach", how her footprints were in blood, how her blood was "mixed" with Meredith's in the bathroom they shared, and how the authorities had proof that a break-in had been "staged" – had no basis in fact. Not only was it not in the record, authorities couldn't confirm it either. [...] But if the Italian media had been doing a better job and, instead of being compliant and cowed, had questioned Mignini's narrative, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito might never have been convicted in the first place."

Here is an actual example of what Burleigh is taking about from a couple of days after the arrests.

Remember this is a load of crap "The chilling account of the Leeds University undergraduate's murder were revealed yesterday in a leaked copy of a judge's report into the killing.

"Detectives are also studying a text message which is said to have predicted her death, saying: "For me, tomorrow or tonight, Meredith dies"." All lies, there was no such text, the prosecution made it up and released it in the media. Prosecutors Giuliano Mignini was still openly talking about the murder as to do with a satanic sex orgy and sacrificial rite at Halloween. (ie he was trying to say they put the satanic orgy off till the next night because the girls were holding a dinner party on Halloween - honestly!).

You still didn't answer me, Overagainst! The question was whether the phrase in the lead that I deleted had been susbtantiated in the article? You have given examples of a bias by the prosecution or the opinions of reporters. Where has it been detailed in the article, that the bias was likely to cause the jury to make a mistake? Tinpisa (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave the book by Burleigh as a major source for the article and the article is the source for the summary-of-the-article statement in the lede. The lede summarises the article. Statements in the lede are therefore not reproduced in the article. Sections of the article you should read to get the basis and sources for the statement in the lede are 5.1 Media coverage, 5.3 Support for Knox and Sollecito, 4 Related proceedings. It is not grounds to cut a part of a sentence or statement from the lede that it is not repeated word for word in the rest of the article.Overagainst (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Read through all of it. Still didn't find any support for thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur. Tinpisa (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

From sources already in the article: "Bremner goes on to criticize the character assassination the media have directed at Knox since the beginning of the trial, which she believes gives the defense an uphill battle in front of a jury that is unsequestered and thus exposed to the often explosive stories in the press." "No wonder the world's media has devoured this story. It has everything - attractive women, jealousy, drink and drugs, questionable lawyers, violent sex and a ghastly throat-cutting. And, at its heart, it has two unlikely protagonists portrayed as a modern-day Hindley and Brady, student lovers united in death and deviancy. Or so we have been told. Despite the fact that the case is still being heard, due to Italy's disregard for subjudice and the ease of digital communication, the ghoulish intricacies of the murder have been debated worldwide. And nobody has been more discussed than Knox: there are websites devoted to her innocence, her guilt, her satanic smirk, her angelic smile, her penchant for Gatling guns and rabbit-shaped erotica, her devotion to mass and the Beatles song Let It Be. You name it. This is not simply trial by media, it's trial by Facebook and blog."LedRush (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

None of these sentences are present in the article. Moreover, merely having an unsequestered jury (which is very common across the world) does not imply thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur. Merely debating the intricacies of the murder worldwide does not imply thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur. Merely having a trial by Facebook and blog does not imply thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur. And you must not rush to remove the {{Citation needed|date=November 2011}} tag without a proper discussion, with at least a majority of the editors concurring its removal. Right now, only you and Overagainst are in favour of its removal. I can see at least 4 editors who think that the tag is justified. --Tinpisa (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Those sentences are from the sources that back up the statement that explicitly confirms the info in the lede. The sentence is "Several journalists argued that the pre-trial publicity and tabloid-style coverage tainted the public perception of Knox and may have prejudiced the trial." I can't believe that you didn't find that sentence or can somehow argue that this isn't a direct support for the language.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The word prejudice is used about a discrimination concept or a legal proceeding. Clearly, in this sentence, the first meaning is implied, which means that "tainted the public perception of Knox and may have prejudiced the trial (in the eyes of the public)". I have also said so earlier, in case a conviction would be more likely solely on the basis of media misreporting, the appeals court would not have exonerated K & S totally. This vindicates my stand. There are a lot of countries that still follow the jury system. Juries are sequestered only in very high-profile cases. The assumption that it is possible to influence the jury through the media, seriously undermines the judicial process in all those countries. It is a very strong and sweeping statement, and must be used with caution. --Tinpisa (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is merely opinion, and incorporates original research to get there. The sources are clear, as is the text in the body of the article.LedRush (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the source to support the text - both the sources do not have the wording. This is the only source that has a small heading stating U.S. Senator: Knox Jury Seemed 'Prejudiced' . If this is what is implied in the article, let it be pointed - specify that the trial jury were seen as prejudiced by a US Senator. Don't make it a general sweeping statement. --Tinpisa (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So in the article, where the support by Maria Cantwell is stated, it could be added that she had 'serious questions about the Italian justice system'. She also "didn't believe she (Knox) had a fair trial" and that the "the overwhelming amount of attention given this case may have prejudiced the jury". --Tinpisa (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And per wikiblame, this was the first insertion of the phrase. --Tinpisa (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction: This is where SlimVirgin first added the phrase "and for having contributed to an atmosphere that made a miscarriage of justice more likely." to the pre-existing sentence "The coverage was criticized for being tabloid in nature, rather than presenting the evidence accurately and dispassionately" - still a bit too much of a stretch from the source she supplied, imo. Then, Overagainst changed "an atmosphere that made a miscarriage of justice more likely to occur" to "an atmosphere that made wrongful convictions more likely to occur"here - another point neither specifically supported by sources nor explicitly stated in the article. As such, the phrase "and for having contributed to an atmosphere that made a miscarriage of justice (and 'wrongful convictions') more likely" should be removed until properly sourced and explicitly stated in the article body. Shirtwaist ☎ 00:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As demonstrated above, it is sourced and it exists in the body. However, I am not opposed to making the language in the lede more closely conform to the text in the body to get us past this stupid argument. How about, "thus possibly prejudicing the outcome of the trial". I would think that "thus possibly influencing the outcome of the trial" would also be fine by me.LedRush (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, please refrain from using a derogatory adjective to describe the argument. Thanks! --Tinpisa (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

But what about the compromise Tinpisa? Is that acceptable to you? It may not be perfectly sourced, but to me it's certainly an improvement over the status quo. Brmull (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduce this source into the article and change the sentence in the lead to : Some observers criticized the media for not describing the case accurately and dispassionately, as they believed it could influence the court case. --Tinpisa (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a great source for how Senator Cantwell tried to pressure Italy during the appeal. As for the issue at hand, the influence of the media on the trial, I'm fine with your proposal but I don't really see how it's substantially different from LedRush's compromise.Brmull (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I used they believed clearly in the text, to highlight that it was the observers belief. LedRush's wording leaves it open, and IMO subtly suggests that it was true in WP's voice. But it is important to introduce the new source, as the existing 2 sources (as discussed above) do not have anything to qualify the comment 'may have prejudiced the trial' in the body. This should also be corrected. Thanks. Tinpisa (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now I get it. I also prefer that it say "believed". Brmull (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The purport of the article is saying that the media not describing the case accurately and dispassionately made Knox's conviction more likely to occur, and you yourself have said "Knox has been exonerated".

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Please cite your justification for deleting an important part of the lede.Overagainst (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The article does suggest that the media influenced the public perception about Knox. But it is quiet about the media influencing the judiciary. Yes, an American judge did try to influence the Italian judiciary and jury, but the article does not detail whether it caused her conviction more likely to occur. Sorry, but do not agree on this one with you, Overagainst. Tinpisa (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nadeau touches a little on how the court may have felt pressure from the media. I'll look for other sources. As you may know, this is the most contentious paragraph in the whole article. As a result of the most recent unhappy compromise, wording was inserted that was not strictly backed up by the sources. The way it is now is okay, but I think it downplays the longstanding complaints on both sides that the media coverage affected the outcome of the trials, and as a result some people will ~~freak out~~ object. We need to think about this more. Brmull (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

With so many sources backing up the language, I'm not sure what the issue is.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article. Which sentence in the article supports the phrase thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur. I am placing a 'fact' tag. You can remove it, if you can quote the sentence in the article that supports this phrase. Tinpisa (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tinpisa, you are again misunderstanding what the lede represents if you think it is reasonable to expect the citing of the sentence in the article that supports a phrase in the lede. There is not and cannot be that kind of one to one correspondence between the wording of a sentence of the concise overview provided in the lede and any one sentence in the rest of the article.

Pretrial publicity in the Italian press unfavourable to the defence would necessarily make a conviction more likely to occur and as you yourself say "Knox has been exonerated"; therefore her conviction was wrongful. By the way, you added the MoMK article to the category 'Unsolved murders in Italy'. As you explained earlier that you did not follow the trials allow me to explain, if I may, that the MoMK is by no means 'unsolved'; Rudy Guede is serving a 16 year prison sentence for murdering and sexually assaulting Meridith Kercher. Overagainst (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see anything in the article that specifically supports "thus making wrongful convictions more likely to occur" either. Which source says this? If an opinion like that does not appear in the article, and no sources are provided that make that specific claim, that statement shouldn't be in the lead, as it would then be nothing but WP:SYNTHESIS and editorial opinion. Shirtwaist ☎ 12:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the new source for this statement in the lead; it quotes as single view (Cantwell's) but does not make a comment generally about observers r.e. prejudicial coverage. I don't think we can draw this specific source out into the generality (we have somewhat the same problem with the related prose later in the article's Media Coverage section). This ties back into the idea that you can't source the sentence "some people said X" with a list of references where some people say X. Perhaps one of the books makes an adequate meta comment on this issue? (I seem to remember having this discussion before; didn't we resolve it?) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(generally speaking; if a sentences hedges with the opening "Some observers", etc. that is a big red flag for this sort of thing. If we get a better source that can simply become "The media was criticised") --Errant ^(chat!) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This is one source for stating that it could influence the court case. This is another, where Mignini says:Let's wait and we will see who was right. The first court or the appeal court. This trial was done under unacceptable media pressure. The decision was almost already announced; this is not normal. This is one of the many blogs that state this view (although blogs can't be RS). Both the sources for the sentence Several journalists argued that the pre-trial publicity and tabloid-style coverage tainted the public perception of Knox and may have prejudiced the trial, have nothing to suggest prejudicing the trial. they probably need to be enhanced or changed. Tinpisa (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As proven above, both sources explicitly support the language.LedRush (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Leave out the unreliable disposable blog source and there is nothing "explicitly" left.TMCk (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing section breaks on this page

Sections should be titled and have new text below old , anything else makes it too difficult to follow. Old threads getting new text and anonymous section break make it difficult to locate discussions that have recently been reactivated. Active discussions should be kept on the bottom of a section, thereby easy to join for anyone dropping by. Not lost in the middle of a huge section with line breaks. I think discussions that make themselves difficult to join or even find can not claim consensus. Overagainst (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I just tried to fix it. Hopefully that works for everyone.TMCk (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to wrap up the discussions in the middle of threads, especially if they have been inactive for a few days, and start a new section at the end of page. These discussions are confusing enough as it is. Brmull (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text: Pre trial publicity

The sensational elements of the case led to Knox quickly becoming the subject of intense media attention in Italy, her appearance, including supposedly 'icy' blue eyes, was commented on. Knox was portrayed as a manipulative narcissist and called "a devil with an angel’s face".(Radar Magazine October /November 2008) The media's fascination with Knox(Amanda Knox: 'Foxy Knoxy' cries herself to sleep in jail) led to some articles about the case containing a picture of Knox but none of Kercher, upsetting an English woman who had been a friend of Kercher's and was later to give key testimony at the trial about Knox's relationship with Kercher and behaviour after the murder.(Follain p271-272).

In 14 Jan 2009, shortly before her trial began, Knox launched a legal action against the author of a best selling book about her, Kercher and their friends in Perugia. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which the author had somehow obtained. Her lawyers claimed that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers".([5])(March 22, 2010,ABC news)(Sky news) US legal commentator Kendal Coffrey observed that "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial".(NEWS INTERVIEW - HLN Prime News Aired December 4, 2009transcript)

Supporters in the US campaigned for the immediate release of Knox while publically proclaiming that Perugia's police and prosecutor had made a series of professional and ethical errors during their investigation. However, the Perugian lawyer representing Knox opposed the tactics. (Battle beyond the Kercher trial). Overagainst (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Fist of all: Don't ever use the "friends of Amanda" group as a source. You absolutely should know by now that such blogs are not RS's on WP.
Secondly: Could we stop adding blow by blow accounts of trivia, undue and not repeat things that are already covered in the article. We're not writing a book, we're supposed to write an encyclopedia and finally, the article should be written to the understanding of the case for the average reader, not for those who are obsessed with the subject and will get more detailed information elsewhere if that's what they're looking for. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TMCk. We seek to write things in summary style and not the narrative (as Errant has also said above). Overagainst, you may find that sometimes you say more when you talk less or in this case, write less. Let's try to keep to the germane facts and keep it clear, concise and to the point, please. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That was a link to a scan for those who wanted to verify the text, the source cite, as you know full well, is Radar magazine. Errant's ideas about 'narrative' are idiosyncratic. I've pointed to featured articles that by my way of thinking contain what (he calls) narrative Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, Death of Ian Tomlinson and am still awaiting his rejoinder. I think if WP gives featured article status to those articles then we should take a leaf out their book, both have media sections Media coverage, Early reaction and analysis Overagainst (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes; those articles are good examples of how to correctly summarise a sequence of events without resorting to a full narration (as you seem to be heading toward). We do not need to cover every trivial action by those associated with the trial in detail, as Follain does. But I've given up trying to discuss or explain this to you. I have more interesting things to do than help clean up the mess here. Walls of lengthy text and proposals; full of excuses and avoidance, and then you simply stick the dubious and badly written text into the article anyway. The second sentence of the first paragraph of your proposed addition perfectly highlights the POV you are subtly and cleverly inserting into the article. YATPOV on this page :( --Errant ^(chat!) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Radar magazine is a reliable source, regardless of where a scan of the article can be found (though we cannot link to copyright violations on Wikipedia, in article space or talk space, so I am removing the link). "Friends of Amanda Knox" would also be a reliable source - for the views of that group, which are notable. Funny how the guilters are all "OMG, the PR campaign/Friends of Amanda Knox is a big money machine controlling all US media coverage" and at the same time trying to claim that they aren't significant enough to mention. DreamGuy (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"you simply stick the dubious and badly written text into the article anyway" One or two of my most substantially sized edits and a number of smaller ones (eg glass in Guede's footprint) over the last few days have been completely deleted so I am not so clever. When I get things wrong like content or wording, I pay the price in wasted time, effort (a lot of both, I'm slow) and credibility. Sometimes those deletions have been right and after arguing I accept it. Sometimes I don't accept it but they stay deleted because I'm just one editor and get discouraged by the opposition.

Unless Wikipedia guidelines or policies that back up your assertions about 'narration' are cited I must assume they do not exist. I have cited 2 examples of featured articles which have quite a few quotations of what was said at certain vital points. You say "We do not need to cover every trivial action by those associated with the trial in detail". Quite so, but I was trying to insert a quote which was non trivial. Like this one- "As Kennedy lay wounded, Juan Romero cradled the senator's head and placed a rosary in his hand.[17] Kennedy asked Romero, "Is everybody safe, OK?" and Romero responded, "Yes, yes, everything is going to be OK". What AK said to the detectives when she was charged with the MoMK is at least as relevant to an article about the MoMK as that quote,. That's just giving a relevant quotation. If it had been left in it would be the only quote from Knox I had in the article, it was swiftly deleted. One very notable quote from Knox, what she said at this vital point and highly relevant to the article - and it got deleted.

Pre trial publicity is relevant to whether AK got a fair trial, there is a reference to both in the lede The sued book was serialized in Italy's leading newspaper. The second sentence you complain about contained of couple of examples of actual press coverage to give a flavor of what the press said. Of course they're POV, the Italian press' POV That's the point, the press had a POV. Those examples were not the worst ones by any means. I have a quote from a legal commentator supporting the view that the Italian press coverage meant AK and RS couldn't get a fair trial.Overagainst (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticizing the editing of others is likely to provoke a response ErrantX. "It is factual she made an admission, it is factual this led to her arrest. It is then definitely factual that she heavily disputes (and the next day partially retracted the statement) it and claims it was made under duress. We can record all of these things I think :) "Mignini felt that..." is a bit weak to me. --Errant (chat!) 15:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)" (Dictionary definitions of 'admission' 4. A confession, as of having committed a crime, 5. A voluntary acknowledgment of truth.) No, it was never factual that Knox made an admission. It was a fact that Knox was alleged to have said certain things by the police, but there is no proof she said it or that it was true. You have a systematically skewed view of what is factual. How can an undisputed quote from Knox of what she said when she was charged with murder be objected to on the grounds it's trivial? Under current circumstances that is an absurd objection.

In response to a question from Jimbo ErranX said-"I've been doing some research on this one - nothing is particularly clear and no source has a good overview of the whole of this issue as it stands the information about the contradiction is synth. We could probably state it as fact rather than "Knox later said..." but even then it is a bit problematic. Nowhere is it recorded Knox's specific claims about not having an interpretor present so it is not clear if she was claiming for the whole time. However; the matter will be in court in November under civil proceedings, so we will probably be able to iron it out then. --Errant (chat!) 11:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)" But it was already known that the Italian Supreme court had ruled Knox had not been given an interpreter.. See current refs 58 and 59 "Dempsey 2010, p. 141–142. Donadio, Rachel. "Details Only Add to Puzzle in Umbrian Murder Case", The New York Times, 29 September 2008".

"I have more interesting things to do than help clean up the mess here". Like you had better things to do between July 22nd 2011 and October 4th. Let's see if you actually do clean things up when it's really needed. You did a few edits and left the article on 4 October 2011. with the lede ending like this- "Reactions to the case have been polarized between the view that Knox and Sollecito were innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice[5][6] and the view that they were directly involved in Kercher's murder and convicted fairly.[7][8]."

ErrantX ,how could you see nothing wrong with that lede and leave it alone. How many millions of people saw that embarrassment to WP in the next few days? Overagainst (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you have fun with that? It must have taken some effort :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There aren't "millions" reading this page! Traffic stats show about 1,500 hits a day at the moment! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipeterproject, I meant main page from 4th Oct onward.

ErrantX, No it wasn't fun, I felt rather stupid. It took me three hours. More effort than you may think, I was 25lbs heavier on the 14th Oct.Overagainst (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Er...what?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And again just a wall of disorganized and senseless words not worth the effort to reply to as they don't reach the editor as proven before. Would be nice to get back on track here (again) with reasonable posts that help improve the article and getting away from what one single editor's thoughts are to reach that goal despite being told otherwise by basically every one else. TMCk (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Overagainst (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Altered version of proposed text

Knox became subject of intense media attention,(Radar Magazine October /November 2008) shortly before her trial she began legal action against the author of a best selling book about her which had been published in Italy. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which the author had somehow obtained. Her lawyers claimed that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers".([6])(March 22, 2010,ABC news)(Sky news) US legal commentator Kendal Coffrey observed that "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial".(NEWS INTERVIEW - HLN Prime News Aired December 4, 2009transcript)

In the US there was a pre-trial publicity campaign supporting Knox and attacking Italian investigators, but her lawyer thought it counter-productive. (22nd October 2008 Daily MailSupporters infuriate Italian prosecutors by suggesting trial moves to U.S), (Battle beyond the Kercher trial) (Follain P243-245). Overagainst (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections to above version? Overagainst (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs improvement. Knox became subject of intense media attention, shortly before her trial she began legal action.. the second part doesn't appear to follow on from the first. Her lawyers claimed & Kendal Coffrey observed; should be "said" (WP:CLAIM). In the US there was a pre-trial publicity campaign; who by? (this is important to note, because the sentence currently implies Knox or her family, etc, were involved - against the advice of their lawyers). but her lawyer thought it counter-productive; this is a bit confusing tacked on. I'd split it out into a second sentence & note why (if possible). The subject of the first few sentences switches rapidly between Knox and "the author" which confuses some uses of "her". It probably needs reworking to make one or the other the focus (can we name the author?). Both the Sky source and ABC News note the same portion of the book as fictional - and mention no others. Do we have a source to support that more was invented, as the sentence implies? --Errant ^(chat!) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That all depends on how people are viewing it. When we last visited this topic, folks were trying to see whether it should be mentioned here at all or placed in the Amanda Knox article. It appears that this section of that article begins down that road.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is this text supposed to go? Will similar text in the "Media" and "Related Proceedings" sections be removed? As Errant said the prose needs to be cleaned up. I also think the quote by Kendall Coffey is confusing. Coffey is not just a legal commentator; he's an expert on using the media to influence juries. When he says "in this country we would say ... you could not get a fair trial", does he mean Americans think Knox couldn't have gotten a fair trial in America because of negative media coverage? Dubious. Brmull (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX, very well then "Knox became..." into two sentences, 'shortly before...' becomes the beginning of the second sentence.

All right, "Her lawyers claimed..." becomes Her lawyers said..."

Using 'said' repeatedly should be avoided where possible. The use of 'said' is by no means mandated by WP style guidance. The link says "Extra care is needed" when using 'observed' and that it should be avoided when what it suggests about a speaker is unverifiable. Not that it is impermissible. In this case it's appropriate to a recognized legal commentator whose views are being quoted about pre trial publicity. Kendall Coffey's qualifications to make observations on legal matters are verifiable. However 'according to' can be used in the sentence. alternatively 'observed' can be altered to 'remarked'. Anyway, he's not some just someone who 'said' things, he is qualified to comment on these matters.

The pre trial publicity campaign supporting Knox was by her supporters. It's not necessary to go into detail about who they were or what Knox's family or parents' involvement was. There is abundant support in the sources provided for a straightforward reading of the text (and the implications you purport to find in the text). As is already in the article, Knox's parents hired a PR adviser. Also they gave an interview in which they attacked the investigators (Follain P243) by recounting what Amanda Knox had told them about being struck during her interrogation. The source says they went on a PR offensive against the investigators, (Follain 243) The proposed text says that Knox's lawyer thought it was a bad idea. He did.(Follain p.244-245 and 182-183)

I see nothing to cause confusion in the conjoined sentence ending "but her lawyer thought it counter-productive."

Some editors object to names being used, Fiorenza Sarzanini wrote the book. Reworked: "Shortly before her trial Knox began legal action against Fiorenza Sarzanini, the author of a best selling book about her which had been published in Italy. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by Sarzanini, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which Sarzanini had somehow obtained. Lawyers for Knox said that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers".

"Both the Sky source and ABC News note the same portion of the book as fictional - and mention no others. Do we have a source to support that more was invented, as the sentence implies? "The sources I gave for the text (link Small Victory For Amanda Knox) make it clear the book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author.-

One of the given sources (ABC) says:"Many of the passages in Sarzanini's book quote personal writings by Knox [...] Based on the documents she obtained, Sarzanini creatively reconstructed scenarios and thoughts she imagined her characters had."

Proposed text says:"The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by the author, witness transcripts not in the pubic domain and selected excepts from Knox's private journals which the author had somehow obtained."

I don't understand how that can be interpreted to imply that more than a portion of the book was not factual when the proposed text said included accounts of events as imagined or invented. The relevance of quantifying how much of the book is invented or imagined escapes me. Overagainst (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Berean–Hunter, this is not about public image it's about pre trial publicity and relevant to Amanda Knox's trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Brmull.Text is about pre trial publicity, it would fit in before 2.2.6 Prosecution section. Read the linked transcript. Kendall Coffey was talking about the media free for all in Italy around Amanda Knox when he said "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial"Overagainst (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Her public image directly came/comes from the pre-trial publicity that she received. The section that I linked to is directly pertinent. I have been undecided on this one but I'm starting to think that LedRush has the best idea in that the material on the libel suit sideshow may fit in the AK article.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter you said "No. Her public image directly came/comes from the pre-trial publicity that she received."

Knox's public image in general is not what is being covered here. The Pre trial publicity in Italy about Amanda Knox is for the good reason that it relates to Knox's trial for the MoMK and thus to the MoMK page. I am not aware of a WP policy or guidline that suggests the pertinence of material to the AK article is a justification for excluding that material from the MoMK article. Overagainst (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text 2.2.3 Interrogation and arrest

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, who took a detective-like role in cases,(Follain P79) arrived from his home after being alerted to the latest round of interviews. Another four hours of unrecorded interrogation took place. There was disagreement among the police about how to proceed, Marco Chiacchiera opposed arresting Knox before a thorough investigation. He advocated placing her, Lumumba, and Sollecito under close surveillance, and intercepting their phone calls. His subordinate, Napololeoni, argued for immediate arrests. At 5:45 am Knox signed a official statement in the presence of Mignini, this had some details changed from what she had previously said; for example, she now said she had met Lumumba at 9 pm, not 8:30. She also added that she had heard Kercher scream, though later in the same statement said she could not remember whether she had heard this. After signing she was taken to the cafeteria for espresso and food. Mignini drew up warrants giving the statements, texts and mobile phone activity as the grounds for arrest.(Dempsey 2010, pp. 149–150, Follain, P135-138)

Knox was arrested in the police offices at noon in the presence of Napoleoni and over thirty others who had worked on the case. John Follain writes when Amanda discovered what she was accused of, she burst out:'You used me, you stressed me out, you yelled at me and now you put me in prison accusing me of having killed my friend? But I could be dead now! And you tell me I'm a murderer?'.(Follain, P142)

Knox wrote a four-page note to the detectives before being taken to prison.(Follain P143) Overagainst (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

No huge objections, but don't parts of this seem a little too detailed for the article? I don't think we should name Chiacchiera--or even Napoleoni--and I question whether this disagreement is important enough to mention. One thing I don't like: The phrase "detective-like" role is vague. It sounds like he's doing something different than any other prosecutor in Italy. Similarly, the fact that Knox was arrested in front of 30 others sounds ominous, but in fact is the norm. As I understand it, every officer has to sign the arrest order. Finally, Knox writing a four page note is covered elsewhere where it talks about how she retracted her earlier statements. Brmull (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mignini is not unique but he is one of the more hands on prosecutors as Follain mentions more than once. The info about mobile phone and computer activity goes into a lot more detail. This is all notable interesting stuff. It's arguable that witnesses' names should be omitted but not the senior investigators, they're in a different category not naming then would be taking things too far. It hardly reflects poorly on Chiacchiera that he was against the arrests. Overagainst (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that "Mignini took a detective-like role" suggests that there there's something unusual or wrong with that, when there isn't. Similarly "Marco Chiacchiera, who was to leave the enquiry shortly afterwards, opposed arresting Knox" suggests that he was dismissed because he thought Mignini was being too aggressive. We don't know that. Likewise, "Knox was arrested ... in the presence of Napoleoni and over thirty others" suggests that this is somehow unusual or intended to humiliate her. We should just give the facts, not insinuate things. And we should try to limit the drama. There are other ways to keep the article interesting without quotes like "You used me!" Brmull (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Follain goes into detail and in more than one place about Mignini taking a detective like role. (Mignini's hobby is pistol shooting, (a Beretta and a SIG)

I didn't intend implying it wasn't Chiacchiera's decision to leave. Follain P164 "11th Dec: For the first time in her career Napololeoni found herself leading a major investigation when Chiacchiera, who had argued against arresting Amanda ,Patrick and Raphaele dropped out of it - officially because he was too busy with other cases."

We could add something to explain why they were all there like @Knox was arrested in the police offices at noon in the presence of Napoleoni and over thirty others who had worked on the case, as is customary in Italy."

The quote from Knox is there for the simple reason that's what she said on being charged with the MoMK. It is highly relevant in every way. It's reproduced just as Follain gives it, that's what she said. Overagainst (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Point one: Follain goes into lots of details since he wrote a book about the case but that doesn't mean that every detail he lays out is of importance for an encyclopedic article. Being a prosecutor is not just "playing a detective like role" but part of his job to do so as was pointed out by another editor before and practicing shooting at a shooting range (with a Beretta, the most common pistol in Italy which as far as I know is the standard weapon for police and the kind) also is nothing unusual for officers of law enforcement.
Point two: What is the importance of this and how does that improve the understanding of the subject? The latter is something you should always ask yourself before any attempt of adding content to the article.
Point three: Sure we could add something like that but then again, what would it add to the understanding of the subject of the article? I can't see any but confusion that would need even more undue explanation.
Point four: Should we fill the article with quotes from Knox or others after each and every statement of a fact, nursing a quote farm despite that wp rules tell us different? I guess not. Some responsive quotes might indeed be necessary but then again, we don't need and should add them extensively and whenever possible choose wording that simply is in no need of adding extensive and undue quotes.TMCk (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Some further thought: You seem to read Follain's book and trying to add every detail you yourself find interesting and important to the article. That's not how it works here and not the way you should approach it. Due weight comes usually from widely reported events while book sources in such cases can be used for simple, plain and important facts the mainstreem press comments on but negollects essentials in their reporting. You can't just add whatever you'll find in a book and see it as due weight just because it appeared there. By this measure we would need to add the whole book and every other book that was written about the case to the article with quotes, thousands of them. Can you see the problem in that? So please takle it slow (as there is no rush on wp), propose changes here at the talkpage and accept the outcome that might take not only days but weeks. There is no deadline on wp.TMCk (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles contain what Errant calls narrative as have pointed out.(One editor is interested in pistols, I mentioned it is Mignini's hobby in passing).

"Should we fill the article with quotes from Knox". Here's a quote from you "Not that I know although they tried pushing another POV before (see thread above).For now, is there any agreement to roll back those edits as I pointed out above?TMCk (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)." In the above remark you seem to be refering to me as one of them or 'they.' That hardly suggests to me that you are a paragon of NPOV with the correct attitude to collaborative editing. Your contibutions do not indicate to me that you spend weeks discussing before changing the main page. you've made 594 edits o the MOMK Talk page and (200+ to the article 2.87% of the total) Moreover you did not raise any objections in the 2 days the proposal was on talk for discussion, a time when you were on WP It seems you prefer to pop up and revert rather than discuss - "So according to the source she had English speaking interrogators in the first interrogation and kept only for a short time without an official interpreter in the second interrogation where she then became a suspect. What sources are denying this account? TMCk (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)."

The point at issue was not whether whether the interrogators were bilingual, the Italian supreme court ruled her statement inadmissable because she had not been provided an official interpreter, I got that made clear in the article. You never did. Here is another quote "I concur with BereanHunter. We should stick to facts and keep opinions from people not related to the case to an absolute minimum if at all.TMCk (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)" You did not want Burleigh's work (which you call opinions) in the article at all. So a reputable journaist who followed the case full time for months and has written a book about it can't be cited. And this is the editor who is lecturing me about due weight ? Now you're saying that what Amanda Knox said when she when charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher as given in a reliable source can not be in the article either.Overagainst (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're misquoting me by leaving out parts and furthermore put words in my mouth I never had said. And then you're evasive in responding to my post while attacking me despite lack of reason, making a reasonable discussion with you impossible. Time for you to change your approach here.TMCk (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) But she has been cited...perhaps too much so. What numerous people have been telling you is that not everything about the case needs to be included in the article. You seem to be laboring under the false presumption that if something is cited that it can't be removed or that there must be a contravening cite that must serve as a rebuttal. This is not the case.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I will leave it to others to follow the link and decide who is being evasive 00:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)" Magnificent Clean-keeper and Berean Hunter concurred, they did not think Burleigh's 'opinions' (ie material from her book) should be in the article One of these 'opinions' was the crucial information which only Burleigh gives ""though Nina Burleigh writes that there was a window grate below". She can't be quoted to " keep opinions from people not related to the case to an absolute minimum" as Magnificent Clean-keeper put it. What Burleigh says about the window gate is an 'opinion' in the mind of a person not related to the case as far as Magnificent Clean-keeper and Berean Hunter are concerned. How could any source be cited or quoted on that basis. Is someone related to the case, like Amanda Knox, able to be cited or quoted? Yes and no. Yes when she is being quoted implicating herself "She also wrote she couldn't "fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered"," source old revision of article as edited by The Magnificent Clean-keeper on 7 October 2011. No, when it's what she said in front of 30 police when she was charged with the murder.Overagainst (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See here.TMCk (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Altered version of proposed text

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini arrived from his home after being alerted to the latest round of interviews. Another four hours of unrecorded interrogation took place. At 5:45 am Knox signed an official statement which was taken by Mignini, this had some details changed from what she had previously said; for example, she now said she had met Lumumba at 9 pm, not 8:30. She also added that she had heard Kercher scream, though later in the same statement said she could not remember whether she had heard this. After signing she was taken to the cafeteria for espresso and food. Mignini drew up warrants giving the statements, texts and mobile phone activity as the grounds for arrest.(Dempsey 2010, pp. 149–150, Follain, P133-138) Knox was arrested at noon in the police offices. John Follain writes "when Amanda discovered what she was accused of, she burst out:'You used me, you stressed me out, you yelled at me and now you put me in prison accusing me of having killed my friend? But I could be dead now! And you tell me I'm a murderer?'." (Follain, P142)

Anyone, there is opposition to adding the above quote from Knox, if you think it belongs in the article please say so below.Overagainst (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No objections to above version then? Overagainst (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I do not think that you have quite got the hang of reporting facts in a neutral way. pablo 20:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. You wrote "if you think it belongs in the article please say so below." and then it appears that you would twist things to mean that silence is acceptance? No one supported this.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Knox's words before she got arrested are not important in the way, say, RFK's dying words were. They're slightly embarrassing to her without being either incriminating or exonerating. Also it's a little weird to say (and I realize this was not your edit) that Knox's 5:45 statement differed from her previous statement without saying when that previous statement was. Apart from these issues, this version is acceptable to me. Brmull (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Pablo X, can you be specific as to problems with the phrasing or content of the proposed text of the revised verion.

Berean Hunter, I saw it could be taken that way afterwards, but it was aimed at getting more people involved rather than inhibiting debate. Could you give specific objections to the revised version?

Brmull,""Is everybody safe" weren't RFK's last words, though that is also quoted in the featured article. (Speaking while he had bullet fragments in his brain BTW).

The quote from Knox is notable, important, and relevant in it's own right. The quote is what she said on discovering what she was being charged with: the murder. An adverse inference can be drawn from silence at charge. Moreover, if she'd said nothing would that be important enough to mention? Quite possibly. Not mentioning what she said rather implies she'd said nothing. Hence the quote has multiple justifications for being in the article. I maybe should reassure (or warn) that don't think there are any more quotes from AK that should be included, but this one stands alone in it's notability.

Raffaele Sollecito was questioned from 10.40pm by Napoleoni along with two detectives from the SCO. Amanda Knox was questioned from 11 pm. but it is not clear when the interview stopped. Raffaele Sollecito allegedly (he denies it) stopped giving Knox an alibi around midnight, he was questioned until 3.30am. Amanda Knox was interviewed again from 1.45 by Rita Ficarra, Lorena Zugarini and Ivano Raffo with Anna Donnino present (Amanda Knox says Mignini was also present). It's not clear what time AK first put herself at the scene of the crime. When she first implicated herself it was not in a statement, she said things while being questioned as a witness - not a suspect. Hence what she said could not be used against her in court under Italian law. At 5.45am she made a statement to Mignini. That was the only statement she had made.Overagainst (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If no one stated that they were for this addition, why would you try to insist? I believe it is too nuanced and detailed and not necessarily accurate. At best, what you might have is something like "Knox would later state that her last words were..." which is not as meaningful as you might think.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, you asked "If no one stated that they were for this addition, why would you try to insist?""

There's no harm in calling for more people to contibute to discussion. I'm trying to address the objections and concerns which the handful of regular comenters have and when they make good points, as some frequently do, I am happy to see the edit modified accordingly. However, the prominence of a view among those who choose to contribute to this talk page may not be reflected out in the wider world. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". Source:WP NPOV

Berean Hunter you said "At best, what you might have is something like "Knox would later state that her last words were..." which is not as meaningful as you might think." The source for the quote from Amanda Knox when she was charged with the murder of Meredith Kercher is not Amanda Knox. It's John Follain's book Death in Perugia , page 142 -143. Follain bases his book on the prosecution's files of the case. He was granted access to the prosecution's files. Given the source I don't think this quote is controversial.Overagainst (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have Follain's book. Does he give attribution to this quoted bit as having come from prosecution files?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the in-text attribution and reference made it clear the attribution is John Follain's book. I mentioned Follain's access to prosecution files but Follain's book is the cited source, not the files. The sources for the information in Follains book are given on page vii 'Sources' . These included the 10,000 pages of the prosecution files as well as interviews with detectives involved (who were present when Amanda Knox was charged as I have mentioned). Overagainst (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Monster of Florence?

Hello. This sentence: "Mignini had made similar allegations in a previous case, unsuccessfully leveling charges at 20 people he said were involved with a Satanic sect responsible for the Monster of Florencekillings." has been reinserted. After going through the references provided, the only one that seems to substantiate the point is the CBS Crimesider article and it is mentioned in a pretty clear opinion piece in "Obit Mag" which does not appear reliable to me (could be wrong though as I'm not familiar with the source)? The Italian sources cited don't appear to substantiate (or mention) the point. Wikipedia was also cited which is clearly not reliable (WP:NOTSOURCE). Original Italian news reports from the Narducci murder do not mention satanism or orgies but a theory around a masonic lodge (as the victim's father admitted to being a member) or a "secret society" ... ([Source, Source 2]). There were satanic rituals accused in some of the Monster of Florence murders originally, but Mignini was not the prosecutor (he in fact, was in a different region). The only source for connecting Mignini to a satanic theory in the MoF case that I am aware of is the CBS Crimesider and Preston. If anyone could provide a reliable source that either (1) Mignini was the prosecutor in the original MoF cases or (2) actually proposed a satanic cult theory in the Narducci investigations, it would be very helpful. Per WP:GRAPEVINE it would seem that this sentence should be removed unless it can be substantiated with quality reliable sources as it deals with a living person, I've marked it as dubious for now and made a comment on the editor's talk page. Thanks (Connolly15 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

Sorry, just to add, that if you read the Crimesider article they are relying on Preston as well for this information. That's why I question the reliability of that source, it repeats Preston's work essentially, which, as a criticism of the individual concerned, shouldn't be solely relied on for making this statement as fact. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

It seems that we have two reliable sources backing up the statement, and your original research calling it into question. I just don't see an issue with the sentence at all and was surprised to see that it was ever removed seeing as it has a rock-solid reliable source.LedRush (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, is Preston considered a reliable source? I was under the impression he was not considered so in this case. Can you clarify why the Obit Mag is a reliable source? Also, no original research, these are main stream Italian media sources about the Narducci murders from italian wikipedia... thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

I'm fairly new to this, but WP:SELFPUBLISH "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." seems clear that Preston is out then? Yes, no, maybe? Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC))

CBS.LedRush (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so one source, not two? And that source is quoting Preston... which, is a self-published source... ? (Connolly15 (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

ABC News also quotes Preston. Is there a source for this other than Preston? Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

ABC attributes Preston, CBS does not. I don't see how original research into the validity of the claims made by CBS or Preston effects what we're doing here unless we have sources that explicitly contradict these statement (and not merely speculation based on your understanding of events). The dubious tag should be removed.LedRush (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LedRush, CBS is a large reputable organisation and the reference is a reliable source for the article to that Mignini espoused a theory about satanists commissioning the MoF killings to harvest female body parts and unsucessfully leveled charges at people based on his theory that Narducci's death was murder (by satanists) to conceal their involment in the MoF killings. Follain p. 372 says Mingini thought the death of Francesco Narducci in 1985 had been murder and was connected to the Monster of Florence case.

The Italian article Il procuratore denuncia per calunnia Giuttari e il pm di Perugia Mignini is a reference for Mignini bringing charges against respectable people who he said were involved in the conspiracy. The Italian article 'Mostro di Firenze, il caso non è ancora chiuso' is a supporting reference for Mignini having a theory connecting Narducci to a Satanist group which supposedly commissioned the the MoF killings to harvest 'fetishes' (vaginas) from the victims for the satanists' rites. (Narducci was supposed to have been in charge of the female body parts) It says "Per il Pm Giuliano Mignini, Narducci era il custode dei feticci, peraltro mai trovati come la Beretta. Ma non ce la faceva più, Narducci, stava per cedere e allora la setta che stava dietro i delitti decise di farlo fuori. Come? Fingendo una morte accidentale, per annegamento. E per riuscire nella diabolica impresa si escogitò il più cervellotico dei sistemi: fu opportunamente ripescato e sommariamente esaminato un altro corpo, mai identificato." the Italian page on the MoF has abundant references for Mignini connecting Narducci to the MoF.

Connolly15, referring to the 'murder of Dr. Narducci' as you did on my talk page is not credible and defames innocent people who were accused by Mignini of covering up the non existent murder. Narducci drowned, the autopsy comissioned by Mignini notwithstanding. Also, I don't know what kind of masonic lodges they have in your neck of the woods but Dr Narducci was said by Mignini to be in charge of the vaginas which had been excised by the MoF from his victims (while, acting on the orders of the supposed conspiracy). On any reasonable reading the charges made by Mignini proposed motives which had nothing to do with Freemasonry. The allegations were of involvement in a cover-up of the supposed murder of Narducci to conceal satanic or diabolica activities and responsibility for ordering the MoF killings. PROCESSO NARDUCCI: IL PM PM HA CHIESTO IL RINVIO A GIUDIZIO PER 18 IMPUTATI

"Giuliano Mignini, al termine della sua requisitoria nell'udienza preliminare in corso davanti al gup Paolo Micheli, ha chiesto il rinvio a giudizio per 18 imputati accusati a vario titolo delle presunte irregolarità compiute in occasione del ritrovamento del cadavere di Francesco Narducci.[...]Avrebbe operato - in base all'accusa - in particolare per evitare che si ipotizzasse un omicidio legato alle vicende del mostro di Firenze alle quali secondo il pm Mignini, Francesco Narducci sarebbe stato legato. Per farlo sarebbe stato anche fatto ritrovare il cadavere di una persona rimasta ignota, scambiato con quello del medico prima della sepoltura."

The references for Italian WP Mostro di Firenze are legitimate sources and they do support the assertion that Mignini's investigation of Narduccis's death revolved around a theory that the MoF killings were ordered by satanists. Reports of Mignini's trials for ordering phone intercepts on senior policemen and launching an investigation of a Florence prosecutor also mention that the conection to the Monster of Florence case.

Mostro di Firenze, annullata la condanna di Mignini e Giuttari I think there are good sources for Mignini having said the conection was Narducci was connected to the MoF though his membership in a supposed Satanists group. Il 'secondo livello' del caso Narducci La partita non è ancora chiusa "La partita processuale sul 'secondo livello' del mostro di Firenze non sarebbe ancora chiusa. Nonostante l’assoluzione dell’unico imputato, Francesco Calamandrei, e la richiesta di archiviazione per mandanti ed esecutori dell’omicidio di Francesco Narducci (tra cui proprio Calamandrei). La procura di Firenze, infatti, sarebbe pronta a fare ricorso dopo il deposito delle motivazioni del gup fiorentino Silvio De Luca e il collega perugino, Giuliano Mignini sarebbe disposto a inviare a Firenze gli atti dei procedimenti in corso." Mignini accused an innocent man, Francesco Calamandrei, of being the mastermind leading the Satanists.

English language paper, The Florentine issue no. 80/2008 / May 29, 2008) "Pharmacist acquitted in monster of Florence' case. Accused of being involved in the mostro di Firenze murders, Francesco Calamandrei was recently exonerated by a Florence court for lack of evidence. Upon hearing the court's ruling, the 68-year-old former pharmacist from San Casciano said he was ‘happy, of course, for the acquittal but the verdict is no compensation for what I have had to undergo in the last the 20 years'. Calamandrei was arrested for his alleged involvement in the last four murders committed by the ‘monster of Florence'. Prosecutors accused Calamandrei of having struck an agreement with one of the accused murderers, Pietro Pacciani, to purchase items taken from the dead victims' bodies. According to prosecutors, the items were then used in séances and magic rites held at a house in the town of Giogoli. The accusations were first made in 1988 by Calamandrei's ex-wife. Denying any involvement in the serial murders that rocked Florence, Calamandrei told reporters, ‘I didn't do anything. The entire argument posed against me was based on hearsay and not concrete facts'. "

It is not clear if Mignini also thought the policemen and Florence prosecutor he ordered phone intercepts and investigation of during the case were also satanists. Overagainst (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. The sentence as written is misleading because it suggests that it was Mignini who came up with the idea for a Satanic sect. This was postulated long before, as the "theflorentine.net" article above makes clear. Part of the problem is the motivation report for this hearing has never been released so we don't the exact words Mignini used. For now I think it's reasonable to take Crimesider/Preston's word that Mignini used the term "Satanic sect", although other cites describe it as a "secret cabal" or a "masonic society". I would switch Connolly15's Italian source for the two Italian sources in the article which aren't directly relevant to the quote. Finally the MoF case is extremely complex and bizarre, as detailed in Preston's book, and to just say "Mignini charged 20 people with being involved with a Satanic sect" without giving some background on MoF (in which there really were satanic rituals and orgies and allegations of a secret society) makes it sound like Mignini's theory came completely out of left field. Brmull (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Connolly15 gives sources to advance the view there was no mention of satanism or sex in Italian newspapers reporting on the charges Mignini brought, that is untrue. My Italian refs are sources which mention Mignini charges related to involvement in Satanism and support the CBS ref.

Mignini did allege involvement in a Satanic group as the motivation for those he charged.MoF article " Giuttari, recently appointed to head a serial crimes squad, announced a new lead suggesting the murders had been planned and carried out by members of a satanic sect. Police and prosecutors in Florence and Perugia, where a parallel investigation was under way into the suspicious death of a local doctor suspected of involvement with the sect, claimed that the murders were carried out at the command of a "mastermind" in the group. Rumours spread about a "Villa of Horrors" where, Giuttari claimed, "a group of respectable citizens above suspicion", including Florentine magistrates, doctors, academics and aristocrats, attended occult rituals involving the use of women's sexual organs. Undeterred by lack of proof, police have continued their search for the "mastermind". Their latest suspect, Francesco Calamandrei, a retired pharmacist, was recently charged with being the Monster of Florence and is expected to stand trial."

The group was supposed to be murdering women for their vaginas to use in occult rites. Those rites are clearly Satanic, devil worshiping, black magic or as the Italians say diabolica. 'Secret cabal or masonic society' is far too mild and highly misleading as to what was being alleged by Mignini. In any case my reference Il procuratore denuncia per calunnia Giuttari e il pm di Perugia Mignini(ref 150 in article) uses the word 'diabolica'. Mignini proposed a theory which reliable sources called Satanic. It is unreasonable to restrict the article to use only the words Mignini used when speaking in Italian to describe his theories. It is quite in order to use reliable sources' description of the motivations Mignini advanced for the charges he brought.

Who first came up with the original of the satanic sect fetishes (female body parts) theory is not relevant or mentioned in the text of the MoMK article, it just says Mignini brought charges against people he alleged were involved in a conspiracy of Satanists. He clearly did do just that; in pursuing the case against those he said had concealed Narducci's body Mignini alleged that the accused were involved with a satanist group. Here is a source for that "Per il Pm Giuliano Mignini, Narducci era il custode dei feticci, peraltro mai trovati come la Beretta. Ma non ce la faceva più, Narducci, stava per cedere e allora la setta che stava dietro i delitti decise di farlo fuori."Here. Google translation of bolded text: "For the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, Narducci was the guardian of the fetishes". So the motivation that Mignini suggested for those charged with concealing the body of the supposed murder victim Narducci, was indeed that of involvement in a conspiracy of satanists. There is no denying Mignini brought those charges against a collection of innocent people.

Mignini did endose allegations of sex and conspiracy of satanists in the Narducci invesigation. ;:here Google translated: "Rizzuto was sent to prosecutor Giuliano Mignini in Perugia where a memorial connects with a lap of pedophile crimes attributed to the monster, saying that the two criminals were actually protected for decades by a dome-esoteric Masonic . ... the magistrates of Perugia judge his statements "articulate and precise." E 'on the basis of them that Mario Spezi has come under investigation could be behind' murder of Francesco Narducci, together with the chemist of San Casciano Francis Calamandrei[...] Rizzuto describes it as the center of every perversion. Claimed that it was frequented by people for years without blame, day turned into monsters at night, including judges, policemen and journalists, and inside were held orgies with children. He also talks about child trafficking and organ. Very serious charges, as we see, seasoned with a jumble of dates and inaccurate data. But apparently the judges in Perugia believe at least in part based. Otherwise, not to mention the "Statements of Rizzuto on time," as they do in 'order. And not only. The prisoner writes in his memoir: "This esoteric-Masonic lodge, and saw still sees within itself so many illustrious names to embarrass anyone, blameless people during the day and turn into monsters at night." And the magistrates of Perugia almost the echo, pointing the finger at "the 'open hostility of large sections of the' establishment in Florence towards the 'hypothesis, well-established, a group of notables who ran the so-called mates snacks." We are waiting to see if such serious allegations are supported by evidence. - WILD FRANCA."

MoMK Article says "Prosecutors Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi first proposed that the murder involved a Satanic ritualistic orgy.[148] Mignini had made similar allegations in a previous case, unsuccessfully leveling charges at 20 people he said were involved with a Satanic sect responsible for the Monster of Florence killings.[149][150][151]" I think that is totally backed up by the refs. Overagainst (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. As I said, I agree to the words "Satanic sect". I still think it's misleading to note that Mignini suspected a "Satanic sect" without noting that the prosecutors in Florence had previously alleged the same thing. Not to mention that Mignini's medical examiner advised him that Narducci's body had been switched. Not to mention that in Italy, unlike the English speaking world, belief in Satanic sects is a mainstream view (this per Preston's book).

I don't want to get distracted from the current sentence, but the preceding one has long been problematic. Nathaniel Rich is the sole source for the statement. Other sources report only that Sollecito's lawyer Maori said this when he was mocking the prosecution's motive. Brmull (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just on the side: I think strongly that we should leave Preston out in general as he has for sure an axe to grind in regards to Mignini (and his opinions should be kept to his own BLP).TMCk (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mignini always included witch fear in his murder theory, and only reluctantly relinquished it. As late as October 2008, a year after the murder, he told a court that the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers ... should have occurred 24 hours earlier” -- on Halloween itself -- “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day.” NINA BURLEIGH article. She's in print asserting Mignini said that in court. There has been no retraction. 'A sexual and sacrificial rite ... on Halloween itself' is pretty conclusive support for what theMoMK article says.Overagainst (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rationale for recent edits that are being undone

'complicity in murder'. AK and RS were convicted of "complicity in murder". Follain p.366 quote- "The court found Amanda and Raffaele guilty of complicity in murder, illegally carrying a knife..."

'During his appeal, Guede alleged' Manual of Style/Words to watch"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." 'Alleged' is entirely appropriate, as is the use of 'Guede'.

'Follain writes "when Amanda discovered what she was accused of...'. Follain is a very reliable source. Other sources may not have some information he includes because they were not given the access Follain was. The sources for the information in Follain's book are given on page vii 'Sources'. They included the 10,000 pages of the prosecution files as well as interviews with detectives who were present when Amanda Knox was charged. Follain is a reputable journalist, his book is certainly sufficient as a source for what Amanda Knox said when she discovered she was being arrested and accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher. I don't see how this is any less relevant than the quotes of what Knox said under interrogation. She is already quoted when, believing she was being questioned as a witness, she put herself at the scene of the crime. Her words from the moment when she realized she was being was being accused of the murder and arrested are highly relevant to the article.Overagainst (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary on deleting of a reference to Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images, Realities, and Policies, 2011, R.Surette by Magnificent Clean-keeper; he says "that is just a downloaded quote from Anne Bremner's site and therefore not a reliable source for a statement of fact".

The source is the 2011 fourth edition of aforementioned criminal justice text book. moreover the book is by Ray Surette who "is internationally recognized as a scholar in the area of media, crime, and justice. A professor of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies." Nothing wrong with it as a source as far as I can see.Overagainst (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Suretto might be so, Bremner is not.TMCk (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Se the source here.TMCk (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

See explanations in recent article history and my talkpage here.TMCk (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm giving full explanations for each edit here and now, would you please do the same. We need to have the whole thing here so there can be a discussion. The source is 'Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images, Realities, and Policies, 2011, R.Surette' as I said. It's a proper source.

Follain is the source for "Complicity in murder". That is a proper source for what the charges were.Overagainst (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

...and contradicting every single RS there is.TMCk (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep being ignorant to comments made by others and myself which I pointed out where to find them, not for you as you must have read them when reverting and posting on my talk page but for other editors watching this page. That is hardly building a healthy environment for discussion.TMCk (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the conversation from my talk page I pointed out above to which you didn't respond as of now:

please go to section I have started explaining the rationale for the edits on MoMK at the talk page HERE.Overagainst (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You gave a rational only for one of your edits there but neglected to at least source this edit within the article. Another problem with Follain as source is that he is the only one using that term and every single other RS is not. If you check on the translation of the Massei report (which is of course not a RS either but still helpful in determination of facts) you'll find that the Italian legal term of "Concorso" was translated to English as "Complicity" with a footnote that explains the term further. The English term of "complicity" in legal terms doesn't fit the more correct term of "murder in company". there is indeed a big difference and we don't want to confuse our readers with giving a false impression, don't we. So either show that more RS's reported it using the same translation or [what I think would be possible and the only way to go into a detail not reported as such in the mainstream media] use the Italian term in the article with a footnote explaining it.TMCk (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Care to address this for a start?TMCk (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly you are saying Follain's book is not a reliable source. However, Follain's book is the best source and we should be using the best sources. Follain is a reputable journalist for a major quality newspaper with long experience of reporting on Italy. He has written several books in English on Italian crime and knows how to translate legal Italian. The Massei report is a non authoritative translation which does not really contradict Follain about 'complicity' anyway. Follian covered the case from the beginning and was granted access to the prosecution files and investigators. It is quite absurd to claim that his book is not a sufficiently reliable source for the charges. And you are wrong about no reliable media sources reporting the charges as "complicity in murder." NYT"After being arrested, he underwent a fast-track trial and was found guilty last fall of complicity in the murder, and sentenced to 30 years in prison." Irish Independent"Geude went on trial and was found guilty of complicity in the murder of Kercher." Reuters U.S. student at murder trial says police beat her"Rudy Guede, was sentenced to 30 years in prison late in 2008 for complicity in rape and murder." Follain's book is reliable, we should be using the best sources. It is not clear why other sources failing to mention information would prevent the citing of a source that did mention that information.

Please be specific about the un-sourced edits you're alleging I made.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject". The reference which cites a book 'Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images, Realities, and Policies (Fourth Edition) 2011' by Ray Surete as a source is perfectly acceptable as far as I can see. Please cite the WP policy or guideline which you think is being violated.Overagainst (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

First let me tell you that I never ever said anything that would a reasonable person make think I suggested Follain is not a RS. I said before why this should be taken with caution but you again chose to ignore and not address it. And your sources about the term "complicity" refer to Guede, not Knox or Sollecito. Are you trying to trick me or anyone else here?
Although you should now by now I'll explain one thing to you: Any edit that is not backed up by a source is considered unsourced and should be removed! Furthermore, as I pointed already out and you ignored in your response, when one single RS said one thing and can't be backed up or is contradicted at least in part by other RS's we ought to use it with great care and determent what is verifiable. I told you before that there seems to be a problem with translating the Italian term of "Concorso" into "complicity as it is a legal term and in English (legal terms) it seems not to be "complicity" but rather "murder in company". That of course is OR even so if reasonable but enough reason to not use "complicity" in the article as it seems misleading and only backed up by one single source. And I'm getting tired of this...TMCk (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Would someone else please be so kind and give their input on this? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Overagainst objects to saying that the three were convicted of murder and instead would like to say that they were convicted of complicity to murder. If that is accurate, it is completely unacceptable. Every RS under the sun has said they were convicted of murder. Even if we have one that disagrees with that assessment, it wouldn't trump all the others. I don't see a benefit in pursuing this line of thought or editing.LedRush (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TMCk's revert.

1. Consensus is against adding Knox's outburst at the time she was arrested. Overagainst you need to stop adding that.

2. The Surette reference doesn't directly support "there was a pre-trial publicity campaign supporting Knox" and should be left out.

3. The sentence "this was the only piece of evidence allegedly linking Sollecito to the crime scene" should be deleted. A later sentence ("central plank") says approximately the same thing in a less awkward, more NPOV way.

4. "Complicity in murder" seems to me to just be a long-winded way of saying "murder". Brmull (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

LedRush I don't understand the point about 'other reliable sources.' in relation to 'complicity in murder' edits. If a source is reliable then what it states as a fact can be taken as factual. There is no conflict between reliable sources here, Follain mentions some things that other sources do not. That is obviously because the Italian police and prosecution looked at his track record; decided he was trustworthy; and gave him full access to their files, transcripts and personnel. Also he knows the subject of Italian criminal cases better that the other authors and was able to do a better job as a result. He also is the most complete book source as he covers the appeals. This is a book we are talking about, a collage of newspaper reports does not outweigh an in-depth book on a subject. We can't penalize a book which is a reliable source for doing a good job of getting information. Follain is an reputable, experienced journalist reporting for the London Times on Italy and the writer of other books on crime in Italy. He knows how to report Italian charges and how to best translate Italian into English.

The specific charges are now more relevant than previously; Guede's conviction and 16 year sentence was on a charge of 'complicity in murder (there are references other than Follain which say that; 1-NYT, 2-Irish Independent, 3-Reuters. Guedes sentence was upheld on 16 Dec 2010 by the Italian Supreme Court. They did not make a new ruling that Guede had accomplices but upheld the decision of the lower court. Failing to mention that Guedes fast track trial and appeal were on a charge of complicity in murder would imply that in the second appeal the Italian Supreme court had itself made a ruling that Guede had accomplices, rather that merely upholding the decision of Guede's first appeal as to his conviction and 16 year sentence. A judge at Ak and RS's appeal made this clear. On 24th November 2010 secondary Judge Zanetti said at the beginning of AK/RS 's appeal while adumbrating facts to the court that the only thing certain about the case was that Meredith Kercher had been murdered (Follain p385). There was no retraction of that statement when Guede's conviction was upheld.

Death in Perugia: The Definitive Account of the Meredith Kercher Case "'In the trial against Knox, Amanda Marie, and Sollecito, Raffaele, given articles 533 and 535'. [...] The court found Amanda and Raffaele guilty of complicity in murder, illegally carrying a knife, sexual assault...".

I'll hold off reverting to the complicity in murder edits as LedRush is questioning them.

Re words at arrest. It is already the article that in a statement she signed it says Amanda Knox 'had heard Kercher scream'. Now, why does that belong in the article but Knox's words on discovering she was being arrested and accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher not belong?

The article as it stood gives the impression that Knox said nothing on being arrested which led the reader to a misleading adverse inference about the putative silence. Follain got Knox's words on arrest from the police. (That reflects well on the police; they gave a full and accurate account of what Knox said. It gives the reader confidence that Knox did actually make the incriminating statements the police claim she did when the impromptu declaration of innocence at her arrest is faithfully reported.) And her words at arrest are important in their own right and for balance to the article's account of her statements while under interrogation.Overagainst (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Brmull,3 Manual of Style/Words to watch"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." -'allegedly linking' is correct in this context according to WP style guide linked to above. There is no justification to take out the whole long established sentence, as you are proposing, on the pretext of a dispute over one phrase within it.

2.Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images, Realities, and Policies (Fourth Edition) 2011p. 124 is a ref for a pre trial organized campaign using US media to support AK and proclaiming her innocence. I think anyone who follows the link will seen it is a proper reference for just that. Overagainst (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're posting a wall of text w/o addressing major points made and then go ahead and just reverse to your version, ignoring again that you didn't get consensus on talk and else. It looks to me as you're just tying to editwar your preferred version into the article by counting on other editors to be just tired of responding or acting on those edits of yours. Not a good way of approach as i pointed out at [your talkpage].TMCk (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worked as well...I'm just too tired to deal with this. Every response brings a wall of text that doesn't address the core concerns of the other parties. I'm not saying I always disagree with his edits, either. For example, I think the Knox exclamation is helpful/useful. But he doesn't address your concerns about it or discuss it in any way conducive to getting consensus. The whole thing is exhausting.LedRush (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've posted further rationales and supporting references as rejoinders to points made in criticism, some of which (Ledrush's) are novel and merited comment and holding off reverting until further discussed. Please be specific here as to points which I am not addressing. There has been no ignoring of criticism, revised versions of edits were very heavily redacted per Talk as anyone can see from looking at the original versions I proposed.

As to editing that it was Monica Napoleoni who saw the cartwheel- that's what happened. NYP, February 28, 2009 Giacinto Profazio was the head of Perugia Flying Squad and in overall charge, he said at the trial: "I was also told that she did the splits and a cartwheel in one of the rooms at the station," "Then after being questioned, she burst into tears". The best source is Follain who interviewed Napoleoni, the main investigator, he says Napoleoni was the one who saw this. (Follain p.130) The edit: "Napoleoni, who had left Sollecito's interrogation to use a vending machine in the room, saw Knox do the splits and a cartwheel and was shocked." This edit, which Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted was reffed to Follain p.130. I don't see a problem with it.Overagainst (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you being entirely fair to me LedRush? You have made copyedits of my contributions several times, and I accepted them and didn't revert. On one occasion whole paras of text were taken out, on the grounds it was a "chatty bit", and I didn't revert that edit when you made it even though I had spent considerable time defending the edit against criticism and reverting others' edits of it. OK, if you're too tired the 'Complicity in murder' edits will be left alone meanwhile, as I said. (By the way Follain says "Napoleoni herself, like many of her detectives, got no sleep for several days that followed – she would rush home just to have a shower and change her clothes, then rush back to the police station".Overagainst (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You keep living in your own world were you are always right and opposition is of no concern to you. You're still ignoring and even attack and insult editors not conform with your line of toughs and repeatedly introduced edits despite and against consensus and most important against the collaborate way we ought to work on WP. You truly keep being as ignorant as one can be and even caused several editors to abandoned the page who are not willing to put up with this and are not willing to waste their time with your tendentious way anymore. You now again can choose to finally start to work with other editors on this page or keep displaying your ignorance and suffer the consequences. There is a limit to everything also here on WP.TMCk (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've now raised the issue at ANI here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MoMK again..TMCk (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Catching up on Overagainst's comment above: "Napoleoni herself, like many of her detectives, got no sleep for several days that followed – she would rush home just to have a shower and change her clothes, then rush back to the police station".--- ...and that has what to do with the edit you made?
Follain says one thing and Dempsey another and by your mislead rationale that everything that is reported in a RS can and should be included I could easily add to your edit about Follain's account "...but according to Dempsey...". Now that wouldn't make much sense as it would just add some confusion and wouldn't be of any help for readers to understand the article's subject.TMCk (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone mentioned in passing that they were too tired to edit, I said "by the way" and mentioned, in brackets, about MoMK detectives going without sleep.

There was no conflict in the text, Dempsey remained as ref for sentence ending "her to demonstrate some moves." Follian was ref for following sentence which says Napoleoni was the one who saw Knox do a cartwheel, Follain is the best source for that because, as has already been explained more than once, Follain had access to the prosecution files and interviewed police involved including Napoleoni. The ref for Dempsy was not on the end of the relevant sentence, but the edit summary said what Follain was the ref for.

I will leave it for others to decide who is behaving improperly in this discussion.Overagainst (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

NO! Dempsy was the citation for the content you removed. Stop the obvious spinning, "Dr".TMCk (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Judge's Motivation report released

The court has released its motivation report and there's a couple of hundred articles on its contents.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/15/world/europe/italy-amanda-knox/index.html

http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/9462989-418/italian-appeals-court-explains-why-it-overturned-amanda-knoxs-conviction.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/amanda-knox-trial-flawed-says-judge?newsfeed=true

In just scanning a few of the article, it looks like a scathing indictment of the lower court and a clear statement of the lack of evidence against AK and RS. Perhaps we need a brief summary section in the article.LedRush (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Associated Press;Italian court says evidence that was used in the Knox murder conviction just didn’t hold up

ABC News, Amanda Knox Judges Trash Prosecution's Case and TacticsJudges "do not confirm the hypothesis that there were many people necessarily involved in the murder." Overagainst (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"[Judges] do not confirm the hypothesis that there were many people necessarily involved in the murder."
Even so you just used the following source in an edit to the article (with a telling edit summary of "cartwheel incident used to demonize Knox,") you give knowingly a misleading one-sided picture by not mentioning what else the judges had to say: ""It is not this court's role to suggest how the crime actually unfolded – nor whether there was one perpetrator or more than one, or on whether other scenarios were overlooked (by investigators)," which on further thought might give an answer to a previous question raised on whether the case is still open and thus unsolved. I think it is a confirmation of the latter and could be added to the article's cats.
But back to you, Overagainst. You're ignoring not only objections, discussions and consensus against your edits but you also seem to show no interest what is being discussed at ANI in regards to your editing behavior that has been going on for quite some time now w/o visible improvements from your side. It's telling that you do the same here as you're doing over there, namely ignoring every input you dislike.TMCk (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, I don't have to check your sources (although I'll do so at some point when I have more time) but I'm certain about that the motivation report should be implemented into the article in some way.TMCk (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Details "bogging down" the article, as requested

"material non-existence" and "not corroborated by any evidence" are redundant
"less salubrious" and "bad neighbourhood" are redundant
"Kercher died in her bedroom at 11 pm at the earliest, with a time frame of between 10 pm and midnight" doesn't make sense
"In September 2007, Knox became one of Kercher's three flatmates in Perugia" was said previously in the article
"Knox's friends saw her as energetic, athletic, and kind, a pacifist hippie who loved making cakes and jam, doing yoga, playing soccer and guitar, rock climbing and cycling" is too much information, and some of it is redundant with what is said in the same paragraph
"no audio or video recording of the interviews" and "were not recorded" are redundant
"Le Chic, owned by a Congolese man, Patrick Lumumba" and "Patrick Lumumba, the local Congolese bar owner ... Le Chic" are redundant
"We'll see you a little later. Good evening" and "see you later, good evening" (x2) are redundant
"she had intended to meet up with Lumumba" and "she planned to meet Lumumba" are redundant
"You used me, you stressed me out..." We've talked about this.
"it was the police who had suggested Lumumba, and the interpreter who suggested that she was suffering from traumatic memory loss" is redundant with the direct quotes from her memoriale in the next paragraph.
"No trace of blood was found on" the knife... This is redundant with what is discussed later in the appeal section.
"Pre-trial publicity" this section is undue weight and should be merged into other sections
"charged with murder", etc., is repeated in two consecutive paragraphs
"Mignini wasn't as hard-hitting as he could have been..." We've talked about this whole paragraph. Blatant POV pushing.
"Filomena's testimony was damaging to the defence..." It would be best to just state the facts, not opine in Wikipedia's voice. In fact this whole paragraph is redundant with what was discussed previously.
"left many in the court shaken". We've talked about this. No editorializing in Wikipedia's voice.
"Both sets of defence lawyers..." This paragraph and the one that follows are inaccurate and poorly written
"Under Italian law..." This is redundant with what was already explained in the "law" section
"numerous basic errors" No editorializing in wikipedia's voice.
"most important piece of evidence" This is editorializing, and redundant with what is discussed about the bra clasp under Sollecito.
"if that's the way things went." Another undue weight quote which has essentially no factual value.
"charges of complicity in murder..." No need to repeatedly restate all the charges (and "complicity in murder" is not a charge, as we've discussed). Just say knox was acquitted of all charges except calunnia.
"Dr Francesco Sollecito, is a successful urologist" This was mentioned previously, and his name is not essential.
"Sollecito had met Knox just seven days before..." This was mentioned previously. Consolidate.
"accompanied by Knox, for the crucial, final interrogation" Editorializing. Also obscures the fact that Knox was not asked to come.
"Sollecito was arrested along with Knox and held in custody without bail." This was explained previously under Knox.
"astounded Manuela Comodi" We've talked about this: Editorializing, and undue weight.
"a court trip to the cottage requested by the defence went badly..." Editorializing. Awkwardly written.
"This was the only piece of evidence..." Opinion stated in wikipedia's voice (arguably untrue)
"Bongiorno was able to wrongfoot police forensic scientist Patrizia Stefanoni" Opinion stated in Wikipedia's voice.
Comment: There's no reason for Knox and Sollecito to have their own trial sections since they were tried together; Propose Merge.
"Guede would sometimes sleep in the street after his father locked him out" if promiscuity is undue weight and prejudicial, so is this
"sent to a good school". Opinion stated as fact. This whole section suffers from inaccuracies due to over-reliance on Burleigh.
"at Via della Pergola 7, where Kercher, Knox and the two Italian women shared the upstairs flat" is redundant
Comment: Extradition section needs expansion to include Guede's exact words and details of the IM and Skype chats, including that Knox "was not involved".
Guede's DNA "on and inside" Kercher's body is redundant with what is said in the Knox section
"faeces ... could not be identified" is undue weight. No one disputes whose faeces they were.
"glass fragment found embedded in a footprint" undue weight and inaccurate: the fragment wasn't embedded and its origin was never determined

(list to be continued) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brmull (talk • contribs)

Unsigned, That'll do to be going on with for now thanks. Haven't time for all right now but Re. number_

1. "In an official statement of their grounds for overturning the convictions the judges wrote there was a "material non-existence" of evidence to support the guilty verdicts at the trial. The appeal judges further stated that the prosecution's theory of an association between Sollecito, Knox and Guede was "not corroborated by any evidence" and "far from probable".[2][3]." Those phrases are not overly detailed, it's appropriate for the lede to be summarising the most important findings of the overview of the case given in the appeal judges report. Neither are they redundant; the phrases "material non-existence" and not corroborated are referring to different things. The former to evidence for the convictions, the latter to the prosecution's idea that AK and/or RS ever associated with Guede on terms of personal familiarity. The lede makes this point in brief without going into the details: RS insisted he had never met or been in the same room as Guede until the trial and as the Hellman report points out there were no mobile calls or texts between AK or RS and Guede whatsoever.Overagainst (talk)

5 According to Follain before her extended sojourn to Italy Knox stepped on a flower accidentally and was really upset, she is a gentle hippie type who does yoga and that is relevant. Rock climbing and cycling could be cut out, perhaps replaced with the flower incident.

6 I have my own objections about this passage: we don't know. We know cops provided no recordings of the interrogations, that doesn't mean there were none. At the appeal it came out that cops 'lost' recordings of intercepted phone calls between AK and RS made after the murder and before their arrests.

HERE.

7.& 8. There is too much emphasis on the text's wording being what aroused police suspicions. (That's Burliegh's idea I think). However, one of the first things the cops asked MK's friends after she was murdered was did she know any black men (Follain). PL is black of course. So the wording of the text is maybe over emphasized.

10. This is part of a passage which was heavily redacted per discussion. A discussion which ended with me and others (often critical of my editing) believing that the quote belongs in. I'm listening if you want to try again.

11, The text puts it too strongly about the police having 'suggested' PL, at trial AK said it was manipulation but a lot more subtle than that. That section should be altered I think.Hellman seems to accept that she was questioned in Italian for much of the time.

12 Many points made by the defences, and rejected by the court, in the original trial were accepted at the appeal. Hence there is some repetition.

13. Why is it undue weight to say that AK was the subject of intense media attention, including a best selling book about her that was published (and serialized in Italy's leading newspaper) before the trial. She won her case against the book so what's the problem in quoting her lawyers? Due weight given to publicity depends on the type and level of publicity that there actually was. "Publicity around a trial must be ignored' you seem to be saying. It is made clear that it is a US commentator (Kendal Coffrey} who observes "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial". That is not an inaccurate reflection of US opinion. Follain says that Knox's lawyer believed that the prosecution were leaking information to the media. Burleigh says that there were many prosecution-friendly false rumours floated which the prosecution refused to confirm or deny to reporters.

15. Follain is a reliable source, it's not undue weight to give a summary of the important courtroom interactions. It is properly qualified by 'according to Follain'. He makes it clear that Mignini lost his temper during the cross examination and ended up shouting, he also had to apologise for talking over AK as she tried to answer a question. Moreover he was not allowed to comment on replies. The judge did just that ("Ah you don't remember"). The defence didn't dare object to what the judge was doing.

16. Fair point.

17 Fair point. Alter to "according to Follian left may ...

18. As already mentioned the defence made points at the trial which the court ignored but were accepted as correct at the appeal. The refusal to accede to defence requests for independent reviews of forensic evidence at the trial is highly relevant.

21.The bra clasp was vital evidence, after the discrediting of the knife DNA. The bra clasp had Sollecito's Y chromosome on it. Changed to 'vital'

22.Vecchiotti handled the analysis part of the review. Stefanoni did not document her lab work. The factual value is that Vecchiotti's 'if' signifies that, in view of Stefanoni failing to document her procedures, Vecchiotti did not accept that Stefanoni's account of what was done to prevent cross contamination was a reliable guide to what actually happened in the lab.

26. It's adding detail to mention Knox was not asked to attend.

28.Follain says this and it's referenced so it's not editorializing.

31 Hardly an opinion. Stefanoni was shown under cross examination to have misled the court and had to change her previous testimony, this was about the most vital piece of evidence in the entire case. The source is Follain.

32.In addition to the deputy head of the Perugia Flying Squad Marco Chiacchiera (who was also against the arrests of AK and RS) several detectives were against arresting Raffaele Sollecito. Basically he was arrested for being Knox's boyfriend. Mignini didn't even cross examine him at the original trial. Mignini pointed up Knox in all aspects but I don't think we can conflate them in the same way. Sollecito was also tried so separate sections are in order.

33 The deprived upbringing of Gude is not a slur on his character, quite the reverse I would have thought. (I'm not sure why you mention promiscuity here).

Burleigh is a good source, actually she's the only source that mentions the window grating.

39.You had a point here. The claim by Sollecito's lawyers was that broken window glass had been carried into Kerchers bedroom while stuck in the tread of Guede's shoe. Introna testified that wounds to Kercher's hands were too tiny for a knife to have caused them in a struggle and that they were likely made by glass fragments on the floor when she was forced to her hands and knees. Massei report 136 and 140. It is not disputed a glass fragment was beside a footprint of Guede's.Overagainst (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Several of your proposed changes would require adding detail.Overagainst (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

After looking at the above, I see good points on either side. I am glad the article got improved enough that these are the kinds of things we are no discussing instead of how horribly bias the whole article was. I see a discussion back and forth. I see no reason to have anyone topic banned. DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead Misleading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The others were arrested before him and had already been convicted before his appeal. The lead gives the impression that their trial followed (and was caused by) his "incriminated" them.Kwenchin (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011‎ (UTC)

On the attempt to topic ban an editor instead of resolving the disputes...

Show is over. Nothing here is helping the article or encyclopedia. Time to move on...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Looks like some editors are over at WP:ANI trying to get an editor topic banned. Someone else there commented that nobody is supporting that editor's edits and therefore it would be reasonable to topic ban that person instead of protecting the article. Let me be perfectly clear here then that I support a number of those recent edits and for the ones I disagree with I think mediation, discussion and other normal dispute resolutions steps are more appropriate than just preventing someone from editing. I certainly think there are cases when individuals should be topic blocked, but this person is not a hopeless case and has added much value to this article with edits and bringing up new topics to consider. If you disagree, please start an RFC or submit it to ArbCom instead of floating it at a noticeboard and hoping some random admin will take the bait and run with it without due discussion. That's nothing but gaming the system.

That being said, I do think the article is starting to get bogged down with details, and those details are being cited to sources that contradict each other or introduce claims not present in other books. I think the level of detail should be kept to a minimum and that anything presented as factual must be supported by sources on both sides of the controversy as factual. Anything disputed must be cited to a named, reliable source, preferably a book instead of a tabloid paper, since the tabloids had horrendous reporting. (Not that some of the books are much better, but at least they are a small step up.) DreamGuy (talk)

In other words you haven't been paying much attention and you like some of Overagainst's edits, but overall the article is getting bogged down in details, contradicts itself, and contradicts other sources. You've diagnosed the problem well, but we can't mandate good judgment, so mediation is a waste of time. Additional restrictions are needed on the editor or on the article itself. Brmull (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, DreamGuy. You like to live in your aggressive kind of world and spread out your accusations all over the place. I try to keep warranted problems in one proper place like here at ANI:[7] and [8]. Wish you could do the same like everybody else.TMCk (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

They aren't just my accusations. They are the accusations of many people, including Jimbo himself. You should count yourself lucky you didn't get blocked as a result of that. All the improvements made to this article in the last year were undoing junk that you and some like-minded people put in there. Every comment you make here is transparently one-sided, with only one goal in mind: trying to get the article to better reflect your bias. It wasn't that long ago you were trying to claim that only fringe whackos believed Knox and Sollecito to be innocent and the article needed to be written in such a way so that readers get that. Now that the tide has turned you are instead taking potshots at the people improving the article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, keep crapping more uninformed BS w/o providing any diffs (which you can't since they don't exist). But dream on...TMCk (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo was wrong. Before the trial was all over Jimbo thought the American girl was guilty. She was not; it was the guy from Ivory Coast. Why would any editor here torture themselves over keeping alive the flame of Jimbo's wrong guess? Knox was not guilty, time to move on. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest that this thread be hatted as off topic. There is a link to the ANI thread above so editors who wish to voice their opinion can do so there where it is approbate.TMCk (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not off topic, it has a direct impact on how this article is handled. But of course I can see why you want it to be hidden, as it gets in the way of your attempts to pretend to be a voice of reason instead of what you are really up to. DreamGuy (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not wanting any admin to block....I would like to see more discussion and a consensus (either way) concerning a topic ban. While RfCs and mediation are certainly channels that can be pursued, I believe that the last topic-banning precisely occurred at ANI (here) and was recently upheld and confirmed again at AN. Considering that many of the behaviors are the same between that editor and this one (as many here may have noticed), I don't see anything inappropriate in how it is pursued. Accusations of gaming the system are without foundation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

DreamGuy said "I do think the article is starting to get bogged down with details, and those details are being cited to sources that contradict each other or introduce claims not present in other books". I don't propose adding any more. Could you be specific about contradictions. The only direct contradiction among sources I am aware of is Dempsey stating as a fact that a cartwheel was performed and seen by Ficarra. Follain says Napoleoni not Ficarra. Article was changed and now says she did the splits and there was an allegation that Knox had turned cartwheels. After someone pointed out a cartwheel was disputed I checked what was said at the trial. BBC report on cartwheels testimony. No police testified to actually seeing Knox do a cartwheel and Dempsey's account is somewhat contradicted by the court testimony by Profazio the head of the Perugia Flying Squad. BBC report: "He also recalled other officers reporting that Ms Knox was doing cartwheels and splits in the police station". So the text of the article had to be changed. I left in Dempsey's account of AK being asked to demonstrate moves and performing the splits. As I read it the actual testimony was not about a single cartwheel but multiple ones. The cartwheels allegation is mentioned by the appeal judges in their report so it is notable. As for "or introducing details not in other sources" I don't see a problem in using something that is only mentioned in one source as long as it is a reputable and reliable source. Like I said I don't propose adding anything.

There has always been a lot of detail about mobile phone and computer activity related to alibis which I don't think add to the article, I didn't add them.

Re criticism of my editing. Please be specific and cite the text of the edit disagreed with so we can have a discussion about the actual points at issue. Overagainst (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, what about your edit warring despite opposition and missing consensus? What about your repeated reverting of questionable contentious edits you were ask to engage in discussion at talk and simply posted a comment and reverted again? What about ignoring the fact that you and your edits (especially the edit warring against consensus) was discussed at ANI and despite being aware of this you chose to not comment, ignore it and shortly after repeated to revert again to your favorite version? Should I go on or is this enough for you to dodge as usual, giving a response (if one at all) that doesn't address the points made?
And what about DreamGuy's point and your response at your comment above?
"::DreamGuy said "I do think the article is starting to get bogged down with details, and those details are being cited to sources that contradict each other or introduce claims not present in other books". I don't propose adding any more."
So after already bogging down the article with details, simply said, "did the damage already", You say you won't do any more of that kind? Do you think you've done enough (damage) or do you finally see the opposition and think it's wise to cease at least for a while till things settled down again a bit? I'm not expecting a direct and forthcoming answer from you as you never gave one before but still, I'm somehow curious about the way you'll dodging out of this. I bet it'll be open obvious as every time before in the last few weeks or better said month.TMCk (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-keeper, I asked for specific edits that are objected to, I got generalized ad hominem brickbats. As anyone who cares to look can easily see I've had substantial edits removed completely and accepted it. I've heavily revised substantial edits per talk and submitted the revised version - then the revised version was further revised per talk. This process took 3 weeks or more for 'Proposed text 2.2.3 Interrogation and arrest.' and "Proposed text: Pre trial publicity' Only then was text put into the article. After this collaborative process I felt that the text was good. When an editor (you), who was silent on the revised version for 12 days while it was on talk, popped up to take out a big chunk of the new text I undid his change and argued against it on talk. That's not going against consensus. How could one person make unilateral changes to the article and keep them there anyway? They couldn't.

Back to the article. Anyone want to make suggestions for details that are 'bogging down' the article? I've already suggested some detail about mobile phone and computer activity should go, here is some which I added - "When Knox and Sollecito showed Battistelli the room with the broken window he expressed the opinion that a burglary had been faked[28]", also "as did the head of Perugia's murder squad, Monica Napoleoni".Overagainst (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cartwheel?

The article (5 Dec 2011) contains the following paragraph:

"On 5 November, Sollecito was called to the police station, arriving there around 10:15 pm, accompanied by Knox.[58] The police had been listening to Knox and Sollecito's telephone conversations, and knew her mother was due to arrive from Seattle on 6 November; Burleigh writes that 5 November might have been the last night police could question Knox without a lawyer, parent, or the American Embassy being involved.[59] While Sollecito was being interviewed, also without a lawyer, Knox remained in a waiting room, doing yoga stretches as was her habit. Shortly after 10:30 pm, according to Knox, a male police officer asked how she had become so flexible and for her to demonstrate some moves. She performed a cartwheel, just as Rita Ficarra, one of the officers who had been interviewing Knox for days, was entering the police station. Ficarra was shocked, seeing the behaviour as suspicious."[60]

Whether Knox actually performed a cartwheel is in dispute and it is stated as an absolute fact in the article. This is a description of events from a more Knox friendly author (http://www.vashonloop.com/article/amanda-knox-cartwheels-and-confessions):

"After sitting for some time, she stood up to stretch and did what was described as the Big Toe Pose; bent over at the waist, fingers touching toes, let your breath out slowly. Yoga, a great tool for stretching and breathing, was how Amanda calmed herself; I imagine she was doing a lot of yoga in the aftermath of Meredith’s slaying. Of course in Seattle Yoga is not unusual, but in Perugia it seemed eccentric."

"A male officer observing Amanda commented that she was very flexible and she chatted that she had been a gymnast as a child, glad for the conversation. He asked if she could do the splits and she complied. NO CARTWHEEL! In fact, Edda says, “the room she was in was far too small to accomplish a cartwheel.” The interaction lasted a moment or two and Amanda settled down to continue her homework. Her actions were at worst adolescent, but never malicious."

Knox denies performing a cartwheel and confirms that she did the splits. Her story seems credible and to state it as fact that she is lying seems a stretch from NPOV to me.

--Davefoc (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Follain says several unnamed detectives saw her doing yoga stretches, Napoleoni is named as seeing the cartwheel. It was leaked that AK did a cartwheel and later Profazio, the former head of the Perugia Flying Squad, testified at the trial that unnamed police had told him that Knox did cartwheels, but no one actually testified to seeing her do it. The wording could be altered to make clear that was an allegation.Overagainst (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction- Det Inspector Rita Ficarra testified she came out a lift into the 'waiting room' (sounds more like a like a foyer) and saw /reprimanded AK (for) doing 'bridges, backbends and cartwheels'. Follain says Napoleoni saw Knox doing a cartwheel when she came to use a vending machine. But, Inspector Lorena Zugarini, also testified she looked in on Knox and saw Knox doing cartwheels and the splits but in a 'side room' and told her off. So at least two separate incidents, possibly in different locations. A foyer /waiting room might have room to do what could be properly described as a cartwheel but a 'side room'? What Knox was seen doing were not cartwheels IMO but much more likely what the police called cartwheels. I think that she was doing advanced yoga poses (as suggested by the reference to 'bridges, backbends' and some of them looked enough like cartwheels for those three to call them that. So it's what the article calls it - an allegation. Overagainst (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"The wording could be altered to make clear that was an allegation." I think it should be. A lot of claims against Knox turned out to be false, many of them promulgated by the police department. Claims about Knox for which the police department is the only source are particularly suspect. --Davefoc (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Further clarification Knox did not demurr when Mignini asked at trial about "the wheel", (not wheel's') so Dempsey's account is probaby more or less correct. She did a cartwheel on the night of the 5th Nov in response to a request from a policeman (who may be the one who struck up a conversation with Amanda without identifing himself as a cop)) to show some moves while waiting beside the lifts outside the Flying Squad offices on the third floor. Monica Napoleoni testified to seeing Amanda do a (not more than one) cartwheel at around 11pm on November 5th that's possible and supports the idea that the man who asked her to 'demonstrate some moves' was the cop who pretended he was just a bystander who wanted to talk. It wasn't really a side room but a small foyer-like area I think. Lorena Zugarini reportedly testified she saw Knox do a cartwheel, that's possible if the offices have glass in the doors or Knox was under covert observation.Ficarra testifed to seeing cartwheels I think that is untrue as more than one cartwheel would take up too much room.Overagainst (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Witnesses

The Witnesses section should probably be eliminated if it's just going to list Formica. That's undue weight. Also I'm not sure I like where this going with key witnesses like Capezzalli and Curatolo relegated to a brief mention in the trial section. This is rewriting history from the standpoint of "Knox and Sollecito are declared innocent, therefore the witnesses are not witnesses." Brmull (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Capezzalli herself says she often heard screams and disturbance at night. It is a bad area Kercher saw an intruder in the grounds of the cottage in mid October. Capezzalli heard but didn't need (or bother) looking out the window to see where the noise came from. She claimed to have found out about the murder before it had been discovered. Curatolo was a Jun-key (professional)witness. Tacit permission to deal drugs in exchange for testimony IMO. Hellman dismisses him. Was Kokomani a 'witness' ? Overagainst (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Weasel words tag

Could you be be specific about problems please?; simply copy and paste the text of the article and (include the ref nos) and what you think are the 'weasel words', or cite specific text you object to on any other grounds and explain why. Overagainst (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just scan for "however" as a start and then click the links provided in the editsummary to find out more about what words can be seen as "weasel words" and why (if it's not to much effort for a long term SPA account to learn some rules, especially those that were clearly pointed out.TMCk (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
And one step (issue) at the time if I may be "allowed" to suggest so.TMCk (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Trivia and weasel words

I'd be appreciated if Overagainst would let the "bored off" editors know when he's done with adding random trivia which is not directly related for understanding the subject of the article. I also expect him to clean up many accounts of weasel words he added so the "weasel word tag" can be removed to make space for others. We're still writing an encyclopedia the last time I checked. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, be specific please. Give the text in the article which is objected to and cite relevant Wikipedia guidlines in support of the objections. Unless this is done how can there be a discussion? Overagainst (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think tagging the article as a whole is particularly helpful, but I need a scotch and some aspirin before I can read this article again and try to figure out what the latest issues are. Will try to get to it this weekend :) Brmull (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Photo of Guede

The article needs a photo of Guede in my opinion. Is the the mugshot released when he was at large now in the public domain ? If so could someone upload it please. Overagainst (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I uploaded it here. The copyright status of mugshots in Italy is unclear but it was released by the police and distributed on all the wire services, so I think it'll pass muster with the copyright admins. Brmull (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Overagainst (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it will stand this time. I had uploaded it...and it was deleted at commons. This discussion held some of the rationales but there are other places in the archive where it was discussed also. Then I believe I uploaded it for Fair-use here and that didn't stand but I can't locate that deletion discussion but I found this one.

A good number of the images that I uploaded for this article were deleted. :(
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Appeal of slander charge

I am enjoying my hiatus from editing this article, but thought that someone may want to update with the following information:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-02-07/amanda-knox-slander-conviction/53000788/1

LedRush (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Appeal

Mignini was told by the Italian government well before Knox was released that, extradition treaty or not, the USA would never send her back. Overagainst (talk) 10:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They don't need to extradite her to appeal. Obviously an appeal to Italy's Supreme Court should be mentioned in the article. Sollecito will also be affected.Connolly15 (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

At the first trial Mignini didn't even question Sollecito about his evidence. This is going to drag on for a decade with no result but impoverishing the Sollecitos. - The Florentine issue no. 80/2008 / May 29, 2008) "Pharmacist acquitted in monster of Florence' case. Accused of being involved in the mostro di Firenze murders, Francesco Calamandrei was recently exonerated by a Florence court for lack of evidence. Upon hearing the court's ruling, the 68-year-old former pharmacist from San Casciano said he was 'happy, of course, for the acquittal but the verdict is no compensation for what I have had to undergo in the last 20 years.' Calamandrei was arrested for his alleged involvement in the last four murders committed by the ‘monster of Florence'. Prosecutors (Mignini basically) accused Calamandrei ... Calamandrei told reporters, ‘I didn't do anything. The entire argument posed against me was based on hearsay and not concrete facts'. " Is an account of every future twist and turn in this futile rigmarole going to be added to the article? Overagainst (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a statement in the lead but have not expanded this within the article as it is still unfolding and I think it is worthwhile to let things develop in whatever direction it may take first.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 12:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The lede is where the reader can cut to the chase. AK/RS's release and the judges verdict on the verdict at the trial of the first degree is given. That is the state of play. Ongoing stuff belongs in the main body of the article .Overagainst (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the highest (and final) level of appeal and in any normal article about a crime there wouldn't even be debate about adding a new sub-section to the trial's history regarding an appeal to the Supreme Court. Connolly15 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on where this is now and the nature of the Italian justice system, I would think that this should be mentioned in the article (perhaps in a subsection when it is more widely reported and when there is more to say about it) but not in the lede. There is nothing about this appeal or the reports about it which indicate that it is so essential to the article that it would be summarized in the lede. Remember, the lede is a summary of the most important parts of the article, and things should only be in there when covered and well sourced in the article itself. Putting this in the lede and not in the article is not an option.

On a different but related note, I would imagine that the article above should be mentioned with this: meaning, we should say that the prosecutors have appealed the murder acquittal and Knox has appealed the slander conviction. These are related topics and should probably be covered together.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article body should mention the appeal but not the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It should be in the main body but not in the lead until the court either accepts or dismisses the appeal.TMCk (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is going to be a one day hearing later this year; the prosecution raising objections to the Hellmann judgement on purely technical grounds.Overagainst (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't think the supreme court is going to overrule the appeal decision, but you can't try to play down the significance of the highest court's ruling as if it's no big deal. Doing so is only prejudging the result. The effect if this is overruled, even if Knox is not extradited, would be felt: (1) European Arrest Warrant means she could never travel in the European Union; (2) Outside of the United States she would be in danger of extradition Roman Polanski-style; (3) any book she and Sollecito publish likely wouldn't be sold in the EU (and perhaps elsewhere) on grounds they would be profiting from a crime (Coroners and Justice Act 2009); and (4) the civil law suits in the US will fly to recover any US profits for the victim's family. Anyway, I am glad that it is being worked in somehow at this point. Connolly15 (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not yet a case merely a scheduled hearing to see if the trial of the second degree (which is virtually a retrial in British terms) was improperly conducted. If the prosecution succeed the losses in name, reputation and wealth will not be to AK, but the inhabitants of a certain European country. Overagainst (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

edit warring over "Alleged"

I've attempted to clean up the wording per WP:CLAIM to make it more neutral. This goes for both the defence as well as the prosecution. I left one occurrence of the word alleged as it describes the weapon entered into evidence.

Can we agree to leave this type of wording out?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd tried that before but to no prevail and added the weasel tag instead. Yesterday I tried again, was of course reverted by the very same editor with ownership issues, then tried to at least balance it out by applying "alleged" to both "sides" and you can see what happened to that, not to mention other ce I did which was wholesome reverted too. I was getting tired of this before and I'm getting tired of this again. VERY tired! Would be nice if this disruptive editwarring by one single editor would end.TMCk (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've given a 3RR warning on that editor's page. Without consensus here, that editor will be blocked for edit-warring the next time they do this. My impression was that the alleged terminology was being used to undermine prosecution arguments much more so than the defence which is an NPOV problem. I've tried to elect language which undermines neither side.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'alleged' issue was discussed and the correct WP style guidance cited by me on 11 Dec. here, you two don't seem to have taken on board that the use of it in the article is proper for the word in the context. OK I'll try again. For use of alleged we should be consulting WP:ALLEGED. ::"Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear."

The uses of alleged or accused that are being deleted were entirely in line with that, it's not "Overagainst's interpretation of weasel". The Magnificent Clean-keeper is in effect saying the WP:ALLEGED approved use is weasel and he was inserting "alleged' into Knox's defence arguments. That is absurd, a lawyer does not allege their client is innocent.

The edits are going beyond wording. Berean Hunter cited WP:CLAIM in his edit summary when removing a well sourced fact: that Kercher found a syringe in the ground of the house. The Magnificent Clean-keeper removed Knox's account of a group of male and female detectives refusing to believe her at her interrogation. Edit summary reads "subjective and judgmental + rm undue mention of mixed group ". Knox's contention that the interrogation was not by two women and a female translator, as police claimed, but a large number of detectives including men is relevant, the deleted text made it clear it was Knox's account. The police version of what happened is objective, but Knox's is subjective? Overagainst (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The usual over and over again(st): You are right and everybody else is wrong. Right?TMCk (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Having understood your rationale, I'm still suggesting that we keep things as neutral as possible. You have cited WP:ALLEGED so please take note of the last sentence there which suggests more neutral language as the way forward. Although alleged is not verboten, it isn't preferable either. As I said, I left one occurrence within the article. For NPOV's sake, we can find other ways to word things without resorting to edit wars. As to your point that a lawyer does not allege their client is innocent, that depends on which definition of allege that you use. Indeed, in many cases the pleas are alleged. See definition #4 for allegation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral wording requires an unproven assertion of serious wrongdoing by the prosecution to be accurately characterized it as what it is: an allegation or accusation. Article now says " During his appeal, Guede stated for the first time that Knox had been in the apartment at the time of the murder" - that is an accusation not a statement.

You altered a section heading from 'Alleged Motive' to 'Motive', why can't you see the implication in that wording is not neutral POV. The current changes go beyond wording as I pointed out above sourced factual information is being deleted. If you give the police version of the interrogation and delete important details from Knox's version ( as "subjective") is that WP:Balance.

WP:NPOVFAQ "In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree."

I put in an in-text attribution from Follain about the animation ( which was shown on a giant screen in a darkened courtroon) leaving many in court shaken. I think that was perfectly legitimate. It got deleted. The current blizzard of deletions and alterations lacks edit summaries that actually say what has been done. Laconic rationales for unspecified changes make it difficult to see what's happened and edit on a case by case basis. Overagainst (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

All accusations are statements. There is nothing wrong with saying that Guede stated something; it does not mean that validity is being given within the article to his statement. The same applies to motive and listing it as such does not imply guilt...it is implied that it is an assertion. If we used your rationale, we would be painting alleged or other such language throughout the article. TMCK's edits were intended to show balance of what you are doing. You can't paint the prosecution's arguments with that brush but not apply it both ways. It is best left out of the article altogether. Our readers are educated enough that they don't need this. Other deletions and copyedits are not the subject of this thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specific edits, and I hate to say this as Overagainst has serious ownership issues, but generally, he is right on this. "Alleged" should only be used to describe purported crimes and not purported defenses per normal English usage and Wikipedia policy. Any use of alleged to describe the defense should be reverted, and unproven claims by the prosecution should be described as being alleged.LedRush (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just did a quick scan of the article. The term was used 6 times, and only once was it incorrectly applied. I removed that one. I haven't seen the edit history to how we got to this point, so I don't know if there used to be more usage and TMCk/Berean got it down to this number, or TMCk/Berean cut it down and Over reinserted them.LedRush (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional input. Could you look through the edits from yesterday to today regarding this matter and offer your ideas. I'm in favor of leaving all forms of claim and allege out in lieu of neutral language. I believe the term was overly used and problematic.

Any use of alleged by the defense should be reverted? I would disagree with that in general terms. An Allegation may be made in criminal law by defendants in terms of Affirmative defenses. As an example, a generic defendant's claim of insanity is nothing more than an allegation unless it is proven by expert testimony.

An example of the defense parties making allegations in this particular case is Knox alleging Lamumba took part in this crime or that Knox alleged that she was struck during interrogation (something which is unproven). So yes, the defense does make allegations.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I just went through the article and it seems that most of TMCk's and Berean's changes were good. However, some notes: to "hold" something in a legal context has a specific meaning, and this should not be used here unless we are talking about an outcome of a legal action. Attest also has a specific meaning that we should be mindful of. Most of the "alleged" that TMCk took out were good, but some were actually detrimental (for example, unless Guede was convicted of B&E, he is merely alleged to have done it). Alleged is the proper legal term for much more here, but I've used other words where it wasn't really necessary in light of TMCk's and Berean's concerns.LedRush (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible alternative for "Alleged Knox motive" (it doesn't read well to me...) might be "Suggested motive"? --Errant ^(chat!) 22:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I could get on board with that.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

dittoLedRush (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In this instance "alleged" or "suggested" is both fine with me.TMCk (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)