Talk:Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Murder of Meredith Kercher was copied or moved into Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito with this edit on 17 October 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Status of article?

What is the status of this article? I'm all for the trial being separted from MOMK. Issymo (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Histmerge?

Trial of Knox and Sollecito was merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher following an AfD back in 2009.

This article was then created by consensus (collected here) splitting the trial section after the appeal ruling.

There's no significative overlapping in crons (apart a redirect update), so I don't know if it's better a speedy deletion of this page or a proper history merge. Of course the old talk should be archive under this page --Juanm (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request rejected: see Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#Rejected requests October 2011. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Mignini

I have nominated the article Giuliano Mignini for deletion, discussion here. I have suggested some of the content on that page be added to either this article or Murder of Meredith Kercher. Thanks. (Connolly15 (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect?

I can't quite see the point of this article, as just about everything in it (except for a few details) is dealt with in context in Murder of Meredith Kercher. Here, standing alone, it is a POV fork, so I'm going to redirect it back to the main article for now (it was recently created with material removed from there), and restore any missing details to that page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As pointed out repeatedly in MoMK talk before being created without consensus, this article is pointless. Shirtwaist ☎ 08:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... repeatedly pointed out by the same two users (you and FT2), spectacularly failing to convince anybody else. When this was created the !vote count was 20 supporting the article and 8 opposing it, and despite your repeated (and unsupported) assertion that the supports weren't based in policy or guidelines several were actually based on both (WP:BLP and WP:EVENT to name but two). Consider the support for it at the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox (2nd nomination) and you begin to see why unilaterally redirecting this was just as bad as unilaterally creating it - six users opposed Knox having a separate article on the basis that this one existed. Many people have expressed the opinion that the main article is becoming too large and difficult to read, so creating this is entirely in line with the often-neglected WP:CFORK: as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage. The mistake was not removing enough of the content from the main article. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must have me confused with someone else. For one thing, I and FT2 were among many others opposing this article, and I have no idea what "despite your repeated (and unsupported) assertion that the supports weren't based in policy or guidelines" refers to, as I made no such assertions. I suggest you read the RfC again more closely before launching into misguided personal attacks and making erroneous accusations. Thanks. Shirtwaist ☎ 20:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt, to be fair, you did imply that the "supports" weren't policy based when you said "Fortunately for WP, admins weigh opinions in relation to policy, not votes or popular demand. If 20 !votes go against policy or community consensus, for example, and 8 do not, guess which ones usually prevail?". Also, I don't see any personal attacks here. Personally, I agree with you and don't think this article should exist (a separate Knox article should be enough, and this is inextricably linked to the murder), but as a procedural matter, it doesn't seem right to unilaterally shut this one down. Shouldn't there have been an AfD process?LedRush (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you happen to miss the words "if", "for example", and "usually" in that statement? It's called a hypothetical. A hypothetical does not imply anything about anything, it merely presents a possible outcome derived from a particular set of proposed facts. Any implication you perceive from that comes from YOU, NOT me. As for the redirect, you'll have to ask SlimVirgin what her prerogatives are as an admin concerning redirecting articles that appear to be content forks, and articles that were created without waiting for a closing admin to decide the outcome of an ongoing RfC about creating the new article. Shirtwaist ☎ 21:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, settle the hell down. I called it as I saw it and your explanation is silly, to say the least. For someone who appears hyper-sensitive to non-existent personal attacks, you sure like to be as anatgonistic as possible to others.

And I shouldn't think that me asking a general question about the proper procedure would require you to respond so defensively. I just thought that an AfD would be the appropriate way to go. If you don't have an opinion on that, fine. But don't bite my head off.LedRush (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave you my opinion. And if you can't handle the kind of response that results from you throwing one of my statements at me while making false assumptions about it, then don't do silly things like that. Cheers Shirtwaist ☎ 23:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you give a "hypothetical" which directly relates to the exact situation we're in which supports your position in that discussion, and if other people take that at face value, the reaoned response is to spew vitriol everywhere and go ape? I'm not buying that brand of crazy. The simple fact is that you got correctly called out by another editor and you went into super defense mode. Try and be a little more mature and engage other editors in a constructive manner.LedRush (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my comment came across as a personal attack. It wasn't intended that way at all, but looking at it again I didn't make that anything like clear enough. If I'd known it was going to increase the drama this much I would have been much more restrained, but it's always easier to tell in retrospect.

In response to LedRush, redirection is technically an editorial decision rather than an administrative one, so in theory anybody's free to do it at any time. By the same token anybody can undo it as well, but that probably wouldn't be productive right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, Ledrush, for not making a clear enough distinction between the talk page and my hypothetical, which was simply and obviously meant to inform Issymo about the way RfC's are supposed to work, not to impugn anyone's arguments in talk. Apparently, in order not to confuse you (and Alzarian16), I should've said "Fortunately for WP, admins weigh opinions in relation to policy, not votes or popular demand. Theoretically speaking, if 22 !votes go against policy or community consensus, for example, and 10 do not, guess which ones usually prevail in such a hypothetical situation?" When dealing with you in the future, I will take this limitation of yours into consideration, as well as your apparent proclivity to make a huge fuss over nothing. Cheers Shirtwaist ☎ 21:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument gets more and more ridiculous and unbelievable with every retelling.LedRush (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Murder of Meredith Kercher is now just circa 8,800 words, contains more detail than it did before, but it also now easier to read because the writing is tighter and a lot of the repetition has gone. This article is a POV fork, and it's extremely unlikely that anyone will take the time to write it properly, in a way that would differentiate it from the main article without introducing a lack of balance and context.

If you want to create a trials article, I suggest you wait until the Knox AfD has closed, then start a new RfC, because I think people got confused in the last RfC about there being no Knox article, and that affected the way they commented. Then ask an experienced, uninvolved admin to close it, because these issues aren't decided on numbers alone. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent improvements to the MoMK article are admirable and do go some way towards reducing the need for this to be separate, but there's still a case to be made, and it seems that a lot of knowledgable users (both in terms of the case and the relevant policies) would support it. My problem is more that the redirect wasn't discussed first, making it no better than the original creation - arguably worse given that it affected the ongoing AfD as well, and went against the majority without a policy-based reason being cited to explain why.

The POV fork question is a new one. What makes this a POV fork rather than any other kind? It doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria listed at WP:POVFORK, since as you said the vast majority of the content is very similar to what was in the original article and doesn't really push one side of the case. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]