User talk:TracyMcClark/new draft/rewrite of MoMK

How we should make edits to this page compared to the main one

One thought and advise that was neglected when editing the main page: Let's try to make small edits at the time (and explain them in our editsummary) whenever possible to prevent reversal of "wholesale" edits that might have some good edits included.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Guede

In the new version of the biography (with similar stuff in the old) we have "According to Times Online, Guede was known as a small-time drug dealer, a drifter with a prior record of petty crime and drug offenses who, according to some witnesses, harassed women and stole from their handbags." I think this highlights a question that we are going to face over and over with the article, so is worth a bit of discussion. On the one hand, the quoted sentence is absolutely supported by a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. On the other hand, it does not look like the highest quality of journalism that one would hope for from The Times!! For instance, the bit about "according to some witnesses" doesn't give us any clue about who these witnesses might be. The piece was written at the time when Guede's trial was ending, but that trial had been held behind closed doors, with no journalists present, so the journalist is certainly not giving an account of something he saw during the trial. It really sounds like hearsay. Similarly, the "prior record of petty crime and drug offences": I have been trawling through all the accounts and can't find anything about Guede having actually been convicted of anything prior to the murder trial (I know there were a couple of run-ins with the police in the weeks before the murder and they should probably be mentioned, but Guede was released both times). This source[1] speaks of his lack of criminal record. Personally, I don't think the term "drifter" is very encyclopedic: the term is so loose, you could easily make the case that Amanda Knox was a drifter, or indeed that I am! I'm not trying to defend Guede, but think it would be useful to get some clarity on how critically we look at our sources. Personally, I would rather not use anything that reads like hearsay, but I'm not sure that Wikipedia policy is on my side! What do others think? Bluewave (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was really just copy-pasted from the original. I don't think we should be going down the road of evaluating the journalistic quality of each source. However I did assume that this had been also reported elsewhere, not just one article. If something is reported widely it can get more weight than something only coming from a single source. The actual wording can probably also be improved - what remains is that he, according to multiple sources (if I see this correctly), was suspect or involved in at least 3 unrelated break-ins. Which would still remain a valid part of his bibliography. Averell (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree about the break-ins. I'm just questioning the drug offences, harrassment of women, stealing from handbags and unspecified "prior record of petty crime" which all reads like hearsay. There is so much hearsay and rumour about this case , quoted in the press (and therefore qualifying as "reliable"), that I'm keen to get a shared view of what we consider acceptable. Bluewave (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since he (Guede) didn't have a criminal record prior to this case, any such "occurrences" should be clearly attributed to the source like "...according to..." and "...non-disclosed witness(es)...", and should be at least partially left out, (although it seems to me that most, if not all sources, are basically just repeating one source. Don't ask me which one was the first where they got it from; That would be almost impossible to tell). I also concur with Bluewave to leave out any unproven "petty crime" besides the break-ins which are clearly on official record but for BLP reasons it should not be phrased in a way that might indicates any conviction since there non on record. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The wording is biased and should be left out. There are other ways to present this material. As the wording stands now, it seems like it is POV pushing and making him look as bad as possible. The whole impact leaves one with the impression that this guy has no credibility because he's always been bad. Not true at all. He was a kid nobody wanted and he ended up trying to survive. He wasn't out to hurt anybody. Notice he broke into offices during the night. Not during the day to harm people, etc.Malke2010 18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Time format

What kind of time format are you using in the UK (as we should use it consistently in the article).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know (maybe some other Brit is going to contradict me here!) we manage quite happily with 24 hour or 12 hour clocks. I don't think it matters whether we say 10pm or 22:00 (the latter maybe sounds more like a railway timetable to me, but I'm a bit old fashioned). As long as we are consistent, I don't think it matters. But I'm probably not best qualified to answer: I once missed a plane to Paris, having misinterpreted the take-off time of 19:30 as being 9:30pm! Bluewave (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If the AM/PM format is common in Britain we might want to go with and stick with that format as I think most English speaking counties will understand it better than what we consider her (in the US) as military time. If there is no objection in a reasonable time I'll go ahead and change it to that format from now on.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the British preference is for lower case, no spaces, no punctuation. eg '6am', not '6 A.M.' nor '6AM'. At least that's the usage in today's Times which I have beside me. Bluewave (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Police investigation

I've added in a section on the police investigation. This was mostly taken from the section in the original article which had achieved some consensus previously. I was conscious though, of the suggestion that we should try to work the controversies into the main text, and I have tried to do so here. The aim was to work in the text from the "police mistreatment" section of the controversies, and thus be able to dispense with that section. I'm in two minds about this and would welcome views. Is it better to do this and accept that the "police investigation" section also makes mention of the trial and other later developments, but allowing us to avoid a separate "controversy" part; or is it better to separate out the controversy and keep the police investigation more focused on the chronological events? Also the resulting section is pretty long and probably betrays some my "tortured prose" which has been commented on before! I hope, with some other contributions to the editing, it could be improved and made more concise. Bluewave (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence section

I've had a go at an evidence section....and I'm likely to go on like this unless someone tells me to stop! Once again, I have taken Averell's suggestion and tried to work the controversies into the main text: once again, I am not sure if this is the best plan. Someone please tell me what they think! Bluewave (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view this seems to work quite well. If a controversy is really so central that it warrants a section by itself, we can always branch it out later on. Averell (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the feedback. I'll carry on with the way I've been working. I'm concerned, though, that the text is still looking quite lengthy. Some edits or suggestions from someone really committed to concise English might be helpful! Bluewave (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? I don't think that the section is particularly lengthy for a case that revolves to a great deal around the forensic evidence. Also it is not problem going into detail as long it makes sense and the result is well-readable. Averell (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources

So far the vast majority of references are to news sources, and often biased, poor quality ones at that. If editors really believe these are essential, they should at least be pared back to journals of record such as The Times, the New York Times (or its offshoot the International Herald Tribune), or better. I'd suggest that where possible other countries' sources should be much preferred over sources from those countries involved. For example Deutsche Welle, Spiegel Online, The Scotsman, Radio France Internationale, France24 or Radio Netherlands Worldwide all have excellent English-language services with no nationalistic cause for coverage bias. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a lot of writing of new stuff but haven't checked all the sources. I was intending to go back and do that. One trouble is that citations only identified by a name can't be checked until the main source is added into the article, and doing things piecemeal makes that difficult. But I agree with your point! Bluewave (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Err... first off, this is English Wikipedia, so in general English-language sources should generally be preferred, not other languages. In this case, there may be also a lot of stuff in Italian that isn't available in English. I don't really want to get an discussion into which papers are "higher quality"; the idea solution would be to prefer primary sources over news reporting wherever possible. However, news reports are often fine sources, especially when we're talking about the viewpoints expressed. Averell (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

English is used beyond just the US and UK, including all the publications I listed above. WP:RS and WP:PSTS make it clear that primary sources are not to be used when secondary sources are available. The draft rewrite is still far too heavily reliant on US and UK sources of low quality. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Committal hearings of Knox and Sollecito

I have added a section on this. Although it was combined with Guede's trial, I thought it helpful to keep it separate. I've also tried to address the "satanic ritual" controversy. I don't really see there is much controversy though. The theory has never been mentioned in open court; it doesn't feature in Michaeli's summary of the court's decision; it was never proposed in the main trial; we only really have the defence counsel's explanation of it. Bluewave (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Trial section

I've also added a section on the trial. This is based largely on a version that previously had consensus. Inevitably there is some duplication with the "Evidence" section: I thought the trial section needed to summarise the cases presented; and the cases are built on the evidence. I have left out the alleged police mistreatment, firstly because it is already covered at length and secondly because I think it was only relevant to the charge of defamation against Lumumba. The evidence from the interviews of 5/6 Nov 2007 was not admissable for the murder charge, so the conduct of the interviews presumably didn't affect the court's deliberations about the murder verdict. But others may disagree.... Bluewave (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking stock of where we are with this

It's now almost a week since TMC-k set up this page and we started editing the new version. Averell kicked off with the biographies and I have since added more sections to the article. There have been edits from a few others and a few comments, but I am keen to get some consensus view of whether we're going in the right direction. My summary of where we are is:

• Although this is billed as a rewrite, we have actually recycled a lot of text (with its attached references) from the original document. I have certainly tried to do a lot of unravelling of overlapping material, though.
• If we continue in the current vein, the new version will be about half the size of the current MoMK article.
• The references need a thorough review, but I was leaving that until the bulk of the text was written.
• I have taken Averell's advice (although initially arguing against it) and tried to blend the controversies into the main text.
• I think the current level of detail is much reduced. For example, I have tried to take it to a level where there is no need to name the roommates and witnesses.
• I have tried to take out opinions as much as possible: those of lawyers, media, relatives. I would argue, however, that the verdict of a court is more than simply an opinion and has to be part of the article.

So, is this what people were hoping for (or did people expect something quite different from a rewrite)? Some views would be welcome, please. Bluewave (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll may be out of this for a while (or not ;). My feeling is that this rewrite, if it is to be used, should be re-merged with the original relatively quickly and to continue improving it in-place. I think it's going in the right direction, although I would argue that NPOV is not about avoiding to include opinions, but to represent all opinions (which is not the same as quoting all opinions directly, of course). Averell (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've pretty much taken the new version as far as I can. I could do more work on references (and will and when I have time) and there are some areas where I could make it more concise (but others might want to be more ruthless than me!) Personally, I think the result is a better basis for ongoing work than the version in article-space but, other than some generally supportive remarks from Averell and TMC-k, I don't know if others agree. So what's the next step? Bluewave (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just finished reading the article and I think it is very good, much better than the previous one (and would like to compliment everyone involved!). There are still some minor adjustments to be done, but I think it could be merged with the other one and then we all could take it from there.

All in all, as I've said, you did a very good job! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing problems

I'm doing some checking of references. There are various problems and I was going to list them below, then cross them off when resolved. Everyone, please feel free to contribute (either by adding to them or resolving them):

1. Meredith Kercher's birthdate is currently cited from a subscription-only site and I can't find an alternative source.
2. Many references from the Michaeli Report. This is available online only as a massive slab of text, in Italian. This makes it difficult to establish verifiability. It is the main source for Guede's trial as the trial was held in closed court, with no reporters.
3. I can't find a source for the allegation that Lumumba was also mistreated by police. Any offers?
4. I can't find a reference for Preston being mistreated by Mignini and the Italian police. There are references such as this one[2] where Preston says that he was threatened with criminal charges but given the opportunity to leave Italy, rather than face them. That's hardly evidence of Mignini condoning violence against suspects. Is there a better citation?
5. And I can't find a cite for Knox screaming while being interviewed by police. The trouble is that any Google search on things like "Knox" and "screaming" just brings up lots of stuff about Knox hearing Kercher screaming.

Bluewave (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution for #2:

I downloaded the (MS-word) file with the intention to convert it into a PDF with page numbers but couldn't open the file itself. Still wondering why but didn't try further to figure it out. Maybe I need the Italian version of MS-Word installed? Who knows! Anyways, someone should be able to do what I intended and if that happens, the editor who managed to do so could upload it to wikisource and we'll have page numbers. Wikid77 sure knows what I'm talking about and I think he would help us out here. But if not, we'll figure it out.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know what the copyright status of the document would be? If such a document were produced in the UK it would probably be subject to "crown copyright". Bluewave (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't thing of that [I was thinking too American and just thought it is in the public domain] and there is indeed a copyright so we can't go with my (simple) idea. Let me see if I can type up the "not-so-simple" idea I have. I'll try to do this in my spare time which could be today or tomorrow or later. Sorry.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Striked out "sorry" as I could do it right away.

The other option which would add a lot of the same citation to the article:

We could add a short Italian phrase as a footnote in the citation like from the beginning of the paragraph to which each edit is sourced to. At the current main article there are 59 citations and here we have 40 citation (which still could be cut down- I didn't count any repetition). Maybe we should go from here and hopefully someone else has a better idea, at least about cutting it down a bit. Although, we have plenty of space left and it might not be an issue at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: It's similar to what Wikid77 probably tried to achieve but with "longer phrases" (to directly lead to the reflected section when searching) and no strange translation in the main body of the article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Example:

"Kercher was murdered in the apartment at around 11pm"

Citation: <ref>http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750 Penale section (or paragraph) "''Iniziando l’attività di indagine, il Procuratore della Repubblica...''"</rev> The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that copyright law is not really my forte; however, in Italy, judicial documents (sentenze, ordinanze and decreti) should not be copyrighted (there are, in fact, many journals who publish them, sometimes with comments). The problem is that we cannot take the version of the verdict we found on www.penale.it, because that one is copyrighted. I'd go for TMC-k's latest proposal, here. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution for #4:

Leave it out. I fail to see the relevance of this bit of information to the actual MoMK article and in my opinion by including this, it would lead to POV in favour of prematurely condemming Mignini. Akuram (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Akuram. If there are no RS's showing the importance to the case we can't go there at all in this article. Preston seems to have his own axe to grind but that's his business and would belong on his Wiki-page, if he has one.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take it out, if no-one beats me to it! It can go back in if someone finds a source. I think the connection between the cases is, in any case, a bit tenuous, because the alleged assault of Knox was presumably around the time she made her first statement (01:45), when Mignini was not even present. Bluewave (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution for #3

I have been searching again for a reference that Patrick Lumumba was mistreated by police. The only thing I could find, from some Google searches, was this, which says "As for Patrick's one interview, with a British tabloid that paid him, I think it needs to be discounted. The same tabloid published an "interview" with Arline Kercher, replete with direct quotations, that turned out to be bogus. Patrick has been very clear about exactly what happened. He has stated that the police were doing their jobs and that he was not mistreated. One of our posters knows him and visited with him recently. He stands by his word. I think he has suffered enough calumny for one lifetime." This source is a blog, so not admissable here. Unless anyone else can find a better reference, I suggest removing the sentence about Lumuba being mistreated. Bluewave (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

3 arrests not 2 

3 arrests not 2 

1) "On 6 November 2007, police arrested two suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, and Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student."

Wrong. "On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student and Patrick Lumumba a bar owner."

2) Amanda Knox

"Knox met Raffaele Sollecito at a classical music concert a few weeks before the murder"

Wrong. "Knox met Raffaele Sollecito at a classical music concert 8 days before the murder"

3) Raffaele Sollecito

"at the time of the murder,"... "He had been the boyfriend of Knox for about two weeks."

Wrong. "at the time of the murder,"... "He had been the boyfriend of Knox for 8 days." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwenchin (talk • contribs) 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding point 2, I changed it from 8 days to "a few weeks" because that is what the reference tells us. It actually says "they met a classical music concert in early October", which would be about 4 weeks. Is there a more reliable reference that says 8 days? If so, please edit the draft: we're all keen to get the facts right. Regarding point 1, I don't know whether Patrick Lumumba's role is notable enough to feature in the lead. On balance, I'd say we should only include the three people actually convicted, in the lead. But I don't feel strongly about it. Bluewave (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Knox ... 8 days" is what the original article says. ("Sollecito ...two weeks" is explained as being two weeks before the arrests) Checking on Google some say early October, some say mid-October, some say late October, some say 8 days which matches others that say 25 October. The reference for the original article, number 76, says 6 days. She said 25 October in court http://boards.insessiontrials.com/showthread.php?t=356199

Anyway the times on meeting of Knox and Sollecito should be the same. How can Knox meet Sollecito 4 weeks before the murder and Sollecito meet Knox 2 weeks before the murder?

Three arrests is important (a) because there were three arrests and (b) because this is part of the prosecutions theory of a sex game of two couples ie two men and two women. They arrested three people for the theory. They only let Lumumba go when they could replace him with Guede. They convicted three people. Kwenchin (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as we have a range of sources, none definitive, that variously say 'early October', 'mid-October', 'late October', '8 days' and '6 days', I suggest we reword it to avoid mentioning the length of time at all. Bluewave (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the arrests, how about saying: "On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student and Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a bar in Perugia. Ultimately, there was no evidence linking Lumumba to the crime and he had a provable alibi, so he was released and completely exonerated." However, I don't think the facts support your theory that either Lumumba or Guede were arrested in order to fit in with a police theory about a sex game. Surely Lumumba was arrested because Knox had made a statement saying that he (alone) was the murderer, and Guede was arrested because the police found his fingerprint in Kercher's blood. This was surely straightforward police work, not some dubious theory. Bluewave (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Put arrests together. Move Guede evidence down to his own section if not repeated elsewhere (the reasons for the other arrests are not mentioned in the header).

"On 6 November 2007, police arrested three suspects: Amanda Knox, an American student, Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student and Patrick Lumumba a bar owner.

On 20 November 2007 Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was arrested and Patrick Lumumba, completely exonerated, was released.

Rudy Hermann Guede was convicted on 28 October 2008 of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. On appeal, his sentence was reduced to 16 years. Guede filed a second appeal in May 2010 to the Court of Cassation.[1]"

ps Lumumba was released after Guede's arrest. pps "Guede maintains that he is innocent" is implied by the fact that he's filed a second appeal.

Kwenchin (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else but I think this looks OK, except that I would leave the protestations of innocence in the article. First of all, the defendants have made notable protestations of their innocence, quite separately from their filing of appeals. Secondly, the filing of an appeal does not necessarily imply a claim of innocence. Appeals can be on many grounds: that a sentence is too severe; that a judge has misdirected a court; that some point of judicial procedure was not followed; etc. So I think it is worth mentioning the claims of innocence (for all 3). Bluewave (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not my theory: "Peter Popham, writing in The Independent, said that Prosecutor Mignini "decided only a few days after Kercher died that the murder was the culmination of an orgy in which Knox, Sollecito and one [sic] other person were involved"" This means one other person as well as Meredith.

• 1st link to "Upstairs Flat" is dead (if section is to be left out remove link).

• "Guede's account was... Guede claimed... Guede claimed... Guede claimed ..."

"Knox has maintained... She told the court... Sollecito maintained... Knox testified that..."

Why does Guede claim but Knox maintain? Sounds biased. We should replace "claim", "maintain" etc with "said".

• "the police have continued to deny that Knox was mistreated and have since charged her with defamation, which will lead to a further criminal trial."

to "the police have continued to deny that Knox was mistreated. She has been charged with slander, the trial date is set for October 2010."

The reference actually says "slander". Is it a "criminal trial" for slander/defamation in Italy? If not this could be added to "Civil actions". Anyway, the reference does not say "criminal trial" just "trial". New reference, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7141729.ece Says "The charges have been brought by Giuliano Mignini". ie not the police.

• Consistency, when referring to the upstairs flat:- (flat, apartment, cottage, house, premises = flat), (flatmate, roommate, housemate = flatmate)

roommate is also incorrect

• "a time when Knox was, according to her own account, still at home with Sollecito"

Sollecito's is not "at home" for Knox. change to " "a time when Knox said she was still at Sollecito's."

• "One of the solicitors stated that Guede had appeared outside the law office and claimed that he had bought both the stolen PC and phone at a railway station in Milan"

What does it mean by "Guede had appeared outside the law office" (this was 2 days after the crime)? What was he doing? It just a case of 'A criminal always returns the scene of the crime' Then it's not worth mentioning.

"Guede said that he had bought both the stolen laptop and phone at a railway station in Milan."

Kwenchin (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your points, Kwenchin...

• Popham seems to be trying to say that the police came up with a theory and then fitted the facts and suspects to it...but then, it's his job to come up with stories that sell newspapers. In fact, within a few days of the murder, the police had a crime scene which indicated that someone had been sexually assaulted, tortured and killed: they also had a witness statement which said that Knox and Lumumba were present and Sollecito might have been there, too. I don't really see that they needed a theory!
• I agree with your other points. I'll have a go at editing, if I have time...or you, or someone else can. Also, in particular...
• I had thought the new charge against Knox was a civil defamation charge, brought by the people whom she allegedly defamed. However, it seems to be a criminal charge, led by a prosecutor. That needs some work to correct. Bluewave (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to main article?

I think that maybe some feel that, with the history of this article, this userspace draft may be more "quiet". However, I still suggest to merge it with the main article rather sooner than later. It seems that this draft is rather complete by now, and discussion is already turning to details. So I wanted to ask what the process is to put this back into the normal editing process? Should there be a discussion on the main talk page first? Averell (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that what we're doing now seems to be "normal editing", so I also agree we could move it back into article space. I don't know what process we need to go through though. Bluewave (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If there's enough of a consensus, an admin can move and history-merge whenever you are ready. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Civil Actions

Since there is doubt as to whether the latest case is a Civil Action could this section be renamed so as to be able to include the slander charges? eg Further Cases, or Related Actions. Kwenchin (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking along the same lines. Maybe "Other civil and criminal cases arising from the murder" or something similar? Bluewave (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Back to main article - straw poll

Averell has suggested moving this back to the main article and MLauba has said that we can do that when we have sufficient consensus...but nobody else has commented! Could we please have a quick straw poll on the proposal that we should move this draft article into the main article space of Murder of Meredith Kercher. Please indicate below if you agree or disagree with this proposal:

• Agree (I think it is a good enough basis for proceeding with "normal" editing in article space). Bluewave (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree I think the update will have interesting consequences. Supporting the keep AK page Wikid77 says "There was even an attempt to rewrite the entire text.." and in the MoMK article changed "Perugia" to "Perugia (185 km or 115 miles north of Rome)." ie he's ignoring this page. Kwenchin (talk) 09:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree further editing should take place in mainspace.   pablo_hablo. 11:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree This is much better than the current version of the article, in particular because it carries a much more appropriate level of detail. --FormerIP (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously I agree, but maybe a little discussion/announcement on the main talk page is in order first. Averell (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree this appears ready for the main stage. Jonathan 01:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs)

• Agree. This article is ready for prime time! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. Good job. Quantpole (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: As there seems to be unanimous consensus, I have requested a stewart move at meta:Steward requests/Speedy deletions (the article has over 5000 edits, rendering a local admin move impossible). MLauba ^(Talk) 09:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)