Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:28, 24 March 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Italy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Murder of Meredith Kercher be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Italy may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A news item involving Murder of Meredith Kercher was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2009.

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Trial of Knox and Sollecito was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 December 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

The contents of the Meredith Kercher page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The contents of the Amanda Knox page were merged into Murder of Meredith Kercher on 13 November 2007. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Edit request from 80.3.25.236, 9 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} <--At trial the shopkeeper's testimony was contradicted by the testimony of workers who were also at the shop at that time. -->

<-- At trial, a shop employee testified that she did not see Amanda -->

The reference is wrong. The correct reference is the Massei Report. Only one employee said she did not see Amanda Knox. Only one employee testified she didn't see Amanda. (of course, she can't "contradict" she can only say she didn't see her.) Please edit; this is not only incorrect but an attempt to alter the record.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.25.236 (talk • contribs)

I had a quick look for other sources (newspaper articles) to see what they say on this matter. There are lots of references to the shopkeeper who spoke for the prosecution, but I couldn't find a reference to the shop employee who spoke for the defence. The Massei report certainly mentions them and I agree with the anonymous poster that our wording seems odd. A shop assistant can only testify that they didn't see Knox, which is not the same is "contradicting" the person who says they did see her. The original poster seems to have offered a proposed new version of the text but put it in a hidden comment. I have taken the liberty of deleting a '!' from their post to make this visible. I hope this is what they originally intended. If not I apologise! Bluewave (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that edit, Bluewave. The relevant part of the Massei report is p 83-4 in the English version , which seems to suggest that having "workers" in the plural is wrong. The use of "contradict" is obviously also not in keeping with NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Rereading my post, it looks a bit garbled. When I said that the Massei report mentions "them", I meant "them" as a singular pronoun, not implying several people. Also when I mentioned my edit of the IP poster's comment, all I did was to change "<!-- At trial..." to "<-- At trial..." so that the text above was not hidden. Hope that's clearer! Anyway, it looks like FormerIP has edited the article to correct the error. Bluewave (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With that taken care of, there's no more need for the edit requested template. :) Banaticus (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On Nov. 19, 2007 the shopkeeper was asked directly by a police officer if he had seen the suspects on the morning of the murder and he said no. Should we mention that the witness changed his story? --Footwarrior (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide the source for this statement.TMCk (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say he was directly asked if she was there, but it does say that police questioned him and he did not mention Knox coming into the store that morning. It seems he came forward a couple months later at the urging of reporters.LedRush (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, are we ok with adding something, or not?LedRush (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Footwarrior to provide a source for his statement above. Yours doesn't do that and I'm not sure what you want to add to what is already there (statement of the shop-keeper and worker).TMCk (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Um...I've provided a source that basically says the same thing. We'd add something that says what the source says (not what Footwarrior stated). Is that generally ok, or are there issues? Perhaps I should just be bold and add it?LedRush (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, in the source, it states that the other coworker testified that Knox didn't come into the store (not that the worker didn't see her), and, therefore, that testimony does contradict the owner's testimony. We should add that back. Please note, we have no problem stating that the alibi's were "contradicted" in this section when we are talking about prosectution evidence.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try from start. Footwarrior asked "Should we mention that the witness changed his story?" but apparently there is no source that would support such statement. Not saying anything on one occasion but on another is not changing his story. Now the article already includes both, the owner's and the worker's testimony (made in court I guess).
"A Perugia shopkeeper testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 on the morning after the murder, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's. A worker in the shop testified that she had not seen Knox."
What exactly would you like to change/remove/add?TMCk (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the other witness testified that Knox was not in the shop that morning (not that s/he didn't see her there). That is a direct contradiction. Furthermore, we could add something like: "Though the shopkeeper did not mention Knox entering his store the morning after the murder when he was first questioned by police," in front of "in court he testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 that morning, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's."LedRush (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just read through the section of the Massei report about this. The judge noted the fact that the shopkeeper had not mentioned Knox when first questioned and he (the judge) seems to have investigated the shopkeeper's credibility. It says, amongst other things "It was discovered that Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if, on the morning of November 2, he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He was asked – so Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Mr. Quintavalle did not say anything about having seen Amanda Knox on the morning of November 2, 2007 in his shop because he was not questioned about this...."

So the court was satisfied that the witness was reliable - had not mentioned Knox because he had not been asked! It also says "witness Ana Marina Chiriboga, at the time an employee in Quintavalle’s shop, said that Quintavalle asked her whether that morning she had seen Amanda and Chiriboga answered no." I don't see that as contradicting him. Bluewave (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...I just had a long response deleted. Oh well. The gist of it was that I'd still like to add something because I believe both the sequence and the substance of events is highly relevant to a reader. I agree that even though we have a source that supports the "contradict" language, we have another which doesn't support it, so we should leave it out unless a majority of sources support the language or a source points to the actual testimony (the difference between affirmatively stating that Knox wasn't there and merely stating that she didn't see her there). I'll try to put a modest proposal together, but it probably won't happen immediately.LedRush (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the following:

However, the shopkeeper did not initially tell police that Knox had been in his market that day, and first informed police of his recollection several months after the crime occurred.

As stated above, I think the sequence of events and the substance of the statements is important. However, I've tried to ensure that there is no inference that the shopkeeper was asked about Knox (and said she wasn't there) by not mentioning the initial interview that was conducted by police. All my statement says is that he didn't tell police day 1, he told them several months later. That provides important timing information but does not imply any incorrect facts (for example, that police asked him about Knox day 1 and he said she wasn't there). Anyway, I've tried to be mindful of the concerns raised above.LedRush (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what others think about this, but my own opinion is that drawing attention to something that didn't happen does sound like we're making a point that it should have happened. I'd favour something like "However, the shopkeeper was not initially asked if Knox had been in his shop that day, and only informed police of his recollection several months after the crime occurred". Anyone else have a view? Bluewave (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment completely, and originally tried to work something like that in, but it became bulky. How about: "However, during the initial police interview the shopkeeper was not initially asked if Knox had been in his shop that day, and only informed police of his recollection concnerning Knox several months after the crime occurred."? This uses your general formulation, but adds back the idea of an initial police interview (which I had deleted so as not to imply that the shopkeeper had changed his story- that's not an issue in this formulation.) I've also added "concerning Knox" for the same reason: so as not to imply he changed his initial story.LedRush (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, I've gone ahead and made that edit...would you mind putting in the cite from the Massei Report after the comma?LedRush (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yes I'll find the cite, but can't right now - I was just sneaking a quick look at Misplaced Pages in between some real-life responsibilities....like my wife's birthday! Bluewave (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've added a ref to page 76 of the Massei report (it's p.84 in the translation). Bluewave (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

On page 156 of Amanda Knox's Appeal are direct quotes from Inspector Volturno's testimony on March 13, 2009 regarding his interview of the shopkeeper shortly after the murder. The shopkeeper after being shown photos of Amanda and Raffaele said that Raffaele was a regular customer and that Amanda had been in the shop a couple of time in his company. The article statement that he wasn't asked about Knox is incorrect. --Footwarrior (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is probably some legalese parsing of words going on in the Massei report, though it doesn't mean that it isn't true. Perhaps the shopkeeper was not directly asked about whether Knox was there that morning, but he was obviously asked generally about her. We need to present both sides of this, or think of a more fair, abbreviated version.LedRush (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to use the Massei report as a reference then it would only be fair to include the counter arguments present in the appeals. Raffaele's appeal has a lot to say about the shopkeeper.

"Further evidence of the numerous contradictions incurred in the decision of the 1st degree, also emerges with indisputable proof from further passages in the Motivations. The Court held that, "The version given by Amanda Knox whereby she remained with Raffaele Sollecito at the house on Corso Garibaldi from the evening of 1 November to 10am the following morning" (p73) is contradicted by the statements made by Marco Quintavalle at the hearing of 21 March 2009. At that sitting the witness reported seeing Amanda entering his shop in Corso Garibaldi the morning of 2 November at around 7.45am. Despite being heard immediately after the murder (transcript of the hearing on 21 march 2009. p. 82), Quintavalle revealed this fact for the first time only in November 2008, i.e. one year after the murder! Even the circumstances which led to this new witness, should, at least, suggest the need for great caution in assessing its reliability.

In reality, this precaution was not observed in any way. The testimony was, in fact, deemed credible because "Inspector Volturno did not ask Quintavalle if on the morning of 2 November he saw Amanda Knox in his shop. He asked him - as Quintavalle recalled - about purchases made by Raffaele Sollecito. Quintavalle did not say he saw Amanda Knox the morning of the 2 November both because he was not asked and because, as the same Quintavalle stated, he considered the fact insignificant (...) The witness provided a precise description of what he noticed on the morning of 2 November; and certain physical features of the girl (blue eyes and white face) together with the unusual hour, could well have fixed what Quintavalle said he saw in his memory" (p75 and 76 of the sentencing report).

The above example is merely the contradictory result of a partial reading of the testimony of the witness. Specifically, at the hearing of 21.03.2009 (transcript, p.83), Sollecito's defence asked: "The specific question is this. Did Inspector Volturno come with photographs of Amanda and Raffaele?" Quintavalle responded "With photographs, no, I don't think so". Inspector Volturno questioned about the same set of circumstances, however, declared "A few days later we tracked down the Conad-Margherita shop situated at the beginning of Corso-Garibaldi, where the owner recognized the photographs we showed him, Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox. Raffaele Sollecito was a regular customer of the store, while the girl had been seen two or three times in his company" (transcript of the hearing on 13.03.2009, pp.177 and 178). Yet, on being asked "Did Inspector Volturno ask you if you knew Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox?" Quintavalle replied, "About Amanda they didn't ask me, that is, they did not ask me if Amanda came to the shop" (transcript of the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.83). This fact was contradicted by the declarations from his assistant, Ana Marina Chiriboga, who, when asked by Knox's defence, "When the police came and spoke with Marco Quintavalle, they didn't speak with you the first time. What did Marco Quintavelle say about this interview? Of what did they speak?", replied, "Nothing, he told us that they asked him if he knew Amanda and Raffaele. Since we had already seen a bit on TV, so we commented" (transcript from the hearing on 26.06.2009, p.54). And again, to the question of the defence, "So they had arrived. What did he say?", "That he knew them", Chiriboga replied precisely, "Yes, ah, they wanted to know if he knew them? Him, yes, he said he knew them, but I said I didn't, also my colleague said that..." (transcript hearing 26.06.2009, p.55), and to the further question, "Quintavalle replied that he knew Amanda and Raffaele, yes?" the witness replied "Yes" (transcript of the hearing 26.06.2009, p.56). Therefore, we do not see how it is possible for the motivations to affirm that Quintavalle did not report to have seen Amanda Knox the morning of 2 November only because he was not asked" (pp 75 and 76 of the motivations).

This prompts two observations. If it is true that Quintavalle provided a precise description of the girl's entry into the shop (who is assumed to be Amanda Knox), it is strange that a person with a 'strong' visual memory (Quintavalle's declarations, hearing 21.03.2009, p.78), when asked "Did you notice what eye colour Sollecito has"? (transcript 21.03.2009, p.115) responded "I believe they were brown, but I'm not quite sure, really no, I didn't notice, I didn't notice that, I don't remember", although Raffaele was his regular customer. To highlight the importance of this fact, furthermore, we should acknowledge that if Quintavalle was impressed by the physiognomy of Amanda, because it is characterized by blue eyes on a white face, then analogously he should have been equally impressed by that of Sollecito: a boy with such clear blue eyes and so fair a complexion. Moreover, Quintavalle remembered all this despite not having seen Amanda from the front but turned three quarters, "Then she entered, I saw her let's say, three quarters left, three quarters of the left side. I didn't see her from the front (...)" (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.75)." Furthermore it also states: "The Motivations, furthermore, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his declarations Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other - and this fact is certain and conclusive - just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people: " had light clothing, a light coloured shirt, beige, some similar colour, also light trousers. Then I noticed that strangely he had no glasses on that evening (...). She was wearing jeans, then had a pair of boots let's say Timberland make (...) she had a sweater (...) of wool or heavy cotton (...) red or something similar" (transcription of 21 March 2009, p.77).

In this regard, following the reasoning of the court, this episode also - noting the unusual hour ("one evening, I had closed the shop, it was a few minutes past 8: p.76) and the particular features of the girl (blue eyes and light skin) - should have remained fixed in the memory of the witness. Yet, strangely, this did not happen, since Quintavalle claimed not to have recognized Amanda on the morning of 2 November (only a few days after that first meeting), because it was as if seeing her for the first time, "for me I didn't know this girl" (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.72).

The motivation has downplayed the fact that Quintavalle decided to speak with investigators only a year after the crime was committed. According to the defence, however, this fact is symptomatic - in addition to those things already mentioned - of the unreliability of his testimony. Quintavalle only decided to make contact with prosecutors after intense pressure from the journalist Antioco Fois, a regular customer of his shop. These statements then allowed the witness to participate in broadcasts on national TV networks. A fact that, in the deposition, Quintavalle sought to play down. In fact, when asked the question "Don't you remember an interview done with TG2?" he replied, "TG2? TG2 came and filmed me in secret, I said: 'Look I have nothing to say, nothing to declare'. Then with the camera they took over the counter of the shop and I told them that they should do nothing, they had to go" (transcript of the hearing 21.03.2009, p.111); while in this regard, the assistant Chiriboga affirmed that Quintavalle had reported having given this interview and, when asked by the President "So what did Quintavalle say about this interview?" the witness responded "He said: 'I have been interviewed', we said: 'But at what time?' He said he was interviewed after we went out to lunch" (transcript from the hearing of 26.06.2009, p.70).

It is clear, therefore, that a memory of more than a year after the fact would require very careful assessment of its reliability, while making it more necessary to find further supporting evidence. In reality, the testimony of Quintavalle is completely unreliable as it was not even confirmed by the statements of his employees, on the morning of 2 November. Ultimately, Quintavalle, like Curatola, is nothing but a witness produced by the mass media. Not infrequently, following the outcry caused by a particular incident in the news, witnesses emerge whose statements, rather than being the result of direct knowledge, convey a 'mass media synthesis' of what has been learned from reporting in newspapers and on television. In spite of this the Court has erroneously considered this witness reliable, extrapolating and emphasizing only a few of his statements and forgetting, however, those that would lead to diametrically opposite conclusions."

I am not sure how you could condense the counter argument down here but I don't see many references or links to the appeals (available on my docstoc page in Italian and Google translations-there are also links to the Italian PDF's at IIP and at other places). The above quotes are a human translation. There is also a link to the TV interview with the shopkeeper that is referred to in the appeal argument. Please excuse formatting problems, long post, etc. My first comment/edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseMontague (talk • contribs) 12:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Giacomo.brunoro, 14 March 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Open Letter

This blog post likely deserves some attention. My interest is simply in making sure that this entry accurately reflects what reliable sources have said and that no reliable sources are omitted based on anyone's agenda in either direction. I'm posting this notice on the BLP noticeboard and the talk page of the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article should reflect reliable sources. But a blog post? One on a site which perhaps less than neutrally describes itself as ‘INJUSTICE IN PERUGIA: THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION OF AMANDA KNOX & RAFFAELE SOLLECITO’? And a post to such a blog which, when you click on the list of signatories, advertises ‘Zoosk: World’s greatest dating site’? Surely the kind of stuff an encyclopedia should turn up its nose at, rather than waste its time over. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider it our greatest honorable trait that we are always willing to take another look, always willing to review our work, and always willing to accept criticism. The post raises several quite straightforward objections that deserve to be answered with real answers, not jeers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but exactly which objections require real answers? As for jeers, how about their ‘mostly European’? Ian Spackman (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

That a critic doesn't live up to our standards is not our concern. We can and should rise above that. One concern that I have is the claim that reliable sources that indicate reasons why one might be skeptical about the verdict in Amanda Knox' case have been systematically omitted from the article. I do not know yet if that claim is true, I merely point out that we should always be willing to explore such concerns thoughtfully. Another concern is whether or not our citations accurately reflect underlying sources. There is never a reason not to reassess such things, and to bring in more eyes to make an evaluation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The topic has been the subject to innumerable blog wars since the murder occurred, and many people in the blogosphere have tried to influence the Misplaced Pages article to match their beliefs. I'm a bit shocked that Jimbo would link to a piece that would be immediately deleted as an attack page and severe violation of WP:BLP if it were reproduced here verbatim. MLauba 16:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The blog post raises legitimate objections. "Legitimate" in the sense of being the kind of objections that deserve to be taken seriously, not necessarily objections that we would agree with upon closer investigation. I'd love to see people here addressing those objections rather than attacking the blogpost.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, there's 27 Archive pages here. Do your own research. You will quickly note that nothing in that petition is new or hasn't been brought up here before, including the attacks on various editors who do not share the point of view expressed in the blog. MLauba 17:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am doing my own research, and it doesn't look good. I see editors being blocked for single edits that are absolutely defensible on the thinnest of grounds. That's not acceptable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that was true at one time, but more recently editors who come in here looking to make changes which they believe will be more neutral but which the small and dedicated group of page watchers feel is too pro-Knox, the attacks all seem focused on the new editors. This post even has hints of it.LedRush (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should be blamed partly. I brought this blogpost ( came up on my wikipedia google alert) to attention of Jimbo. Neither of us are aware of the context and history of the article or subject. But innocently thought it may bring the attention of subject matter experts on this -- Tinu Cherian - 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

A search on ANI , BLPN or NPOVN for Amanada Knox or Murder of Meredith Kercher will turn out a massive amount of prior discussions, with much on user conduct. A common thread however is that comments on content by uninvolved parties always express surprise that the article actually is neutral. MLauba 16:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors interested in some of the back history can study Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher for a small snapshot sample of what this is all about. MLauba 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• An internet petition with all of 60 signatures? Hmm, I am not seeing the compelling need for the founder to get involved here... --John (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • A petition doesn't matter. Number of signatures doesn't matter. Getting it right is all that matters. I accept input from all kinds of sources, and we should always be willing to take another look.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This post cannot be used because it is not a Reliable Source for anything at all. I agree that the article should be edited "correctly", but that means we should follow WP policy and get reliable sources to back up specific suggestions on how to change the article.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No one, least of all me, is arguing that the blog post should be used as a source. The blog post is a discussion of what has been going on here. It should be thoughtfully considered. Is it true that people have been banned for completely neutral edits? Yes. It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes. None of that is acceptable. I am not arguing for reinstating any of the badly behaved accounts from before - they are irrelevant to this discussion. My point is that badly behaved accounts are no excuse for bias.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wales, I have been told this is not the place for the discussion so I apologize if I am out of line posting here. I am hopeful that you will take a moment to explain to me why Misplaced Pages refuses to allow a page for Amanda Knox. Her case is one of the biggest news stories of the decade. The explanations I have received have come from the group currently controlling this article. I feel their opinions are heavily biased. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Do you personally feel that a page detailing a major news story, such as the Amanda Knox case, should be forcefully ignored by Misplaced Pages? BruceFisher (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article is inaccurate and incomplete. Many credible sources have been omitted. PhanuelB did an excellent job of detailing the excluded information. He organized the information and sourced everything. He was banned from Misplaced Pages for his efforts. I agree with Mr. Wales. My blog should not be looked to by Misplaced Pages as a credible source. It appears that fact may be clouding the issue. The open letter asks Misplaced Pages to take an honest look at what has taken place here. No one is asking Misplaced Pages to use an advocacy blog as a credible source. The fact is credible sources have been provided to Misplaced Pages that are currently being ignored. That is the issue. Please read through the credible list of sources and take a look at all of the information that is currently non existent in the current "Murder of Meredith Kercher" article. You can read through PhanuelB's excellent work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3APhanuelB&action=historysubmit&diff=405159511&oldid=405089368 BruceFisher (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a rapid response squad. I generally agree that the article has a slight bias built in. This bias is perpetuated by being overly hostile to any potential editor who has a potential skepticism regarding the guilt of the accused (which in itself is probably a reaction from so many unsubstantiated edits which do not conform to WP policy from pro-Knox editors). This ensures that only editors with the "right" views on the case edit the article. Some examples of this bias are found in an over-reliance on the Massei report, the characterization of Knox supporters and her family's activities (the blog was right about that), and the muted criticism section regarding the trial. Obviously, though, the blog post cannot be used as a reliable source for anything at all, but I wish they would have made more specific edit requests with citations to reliable sources...and perhaps even came to engage in the editing of this article in conformity with Misplaced Pages policy. Although the article in its current form is not perfect, it is not broken either. It is generally fair, and the editors generally try to adhere to wikipedia policy in editing it, something that cannot be said for many editors who come here specifically to make the article "more fair" for Knox.LedRush (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you generally, but I think that the article has more problems than that. I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion. I recommend reading all of this (it is long) and taking particular note of the sections "PhanuelB's Reliable Sources". Compare that to what appears in the article. I have drawn no firm conclusions, but there is enough here to warrant careful examination.

An additional concern, about which again I have drawn no firm conclusions, is that this edit led to a block. I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Before this conversation gets too far along, I strongly suggest finding specific instances which you would like to change, propose an edit, and make sure that the edit is supported by a reliable resourse. Discussing the issue in general will not be helpful, and the editors on the board generally treat such discussions with hostility.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

PhanuelB's reliable sources were subject to extensive discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 25#Criticism of the Knox Sollecito Trial. MLauba 18:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll note here that the blocking admin mentioned above has retired from Misplaced Pages. I took the liberty of sending him a mail informing him of this discussion. MLauba 22:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be really surprising if a checkuser now actually found something. The checkuser data is kept only from 3 months - and it's obviously been more than 3 months since September. It means nothing. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I just brought that up on Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations, and the reply was "Checkuser data automatically expires in 3 months, so Jimmy running a checkuser now is meaningless.". I was going to post about it, but I needed to be very careful to avoid giving Jimbo an excuse to lash out with a nasty personal attack (a point I will stand on, given his actions) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The blogpost is quite misleading in a few ways. It is not true, as has been pointed out that the article "for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports”. The only British tabloid source is the Mirror, for a piece written by the victim’s father, the use of which doesn’t seem unreasonable. I also don’t think the Kercher case is “one of the most controversial and heavily criticized judicial proceedings in modern European history”. It would be more accurate to say that it is a murder case which has received a fair amount of newspaper coverage because it involves sex and drugs and young people abroad. It is true, though, that the conviction of Amanda Knox was criticised in some media along the lines of “public lynching” and “kangaroo court”, as reported on the blog. I don’t think anyone objects per se to that type of material being included in the article, subject to proper consideration of noteworthiness, NPOV, weight and BLP. It’s obvious why this type of edit would be reverted. The problem, if there is one, is that a more sophisticated approach hasn’t materialised. A couple of the sources proposed by the blog have been proposed before but rejected for good reasons (for example, on one occasion the material could only be sourced to the Injustice in Perugia website).

I’d take some convincing that the article needs to pay very much more attention to the “kangaroo court” stuff than it already does. If it looks like it does need to, I’d say this is because the article is, by comparison, overburdened with a blow-by-blow account of forensic evidence etc. If a consensus were to emerge that more info should be added, then sobeit, provided everything conforms to NPOV. But someone needs to kick off that discussion which no-one has been interested in doing in the past. I think it’s quite a complicated discussion once you get into it.

The blog post says that there are various inaccuracies in the article. This can’t be ruled out, but I think there have been such exhaustive discussions that virtually everything in the article has a reliable source which has been checked by editors with varying opinions on the case. At the present time, nothing is wrong with WP processes in that regard. If there are inaccuracies that have gone unnoticed, the talkpage is an open forum. --FormerIP (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. Condensed or summarized, sure, why not, that would be a perfectly ok editorial revision. But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be seeing censorship of the views of prominent journalists, Jimbo. I'm seeing a lot of text dedicated to a non-neutral quote-farm. I think the correct thing would have been to revert and refer the editor to talk. However, I obviously didn't think so at the time. Instead, it looks like I initiated a discussion and then condensed or summarised the content: . So, a perfectly ok editorial revision. It's been the stable version for quite a while at least. That doesn't make it holy, of course, but any editor remains free to challenge it at any time, so long as they are not subject to a block that has been extensively reviewed and repeatedly declined.

You say: "It is true that reliable sources have been systematically excluded? Yes.". I say: "Do you have any evidence of any improper behaviour in this regard?".--FormerIP (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I request that you remove all of the indefinite blocks added by user:black Kite over the last 90 days and allow all those banned users to participate in this discussion. hard to be neutral when you have only editors from one side of the controversy represented - tjholme 155.70.23.45 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

People were blocked in the last 90 days? Things have been pretty quiet here since I've been around, and I thought I started here about 3 months ago. Hm...LedRush (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone contributing to this page has been indeffed during the last 90 days. --FormerIP (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of timing, there are several blocked editors that need to be part of this discussion. PhanuelB, wikid77 (not sure if that's correct) for sure. --Lilome (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been awhile since the purges of so many as 'sockpuppets'. Since last Fall anyway. Dont insult everyone involved by pretending you dont remember MLauba. You were in the middle of it. Black Kite did the actual blocking but the rest of you gatekeepers stood by and watched. Once again I ask, take off the blocks and let everyone have a say in this discussion. tjholme 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.70.23.45 (talk)

I haven't said anything actually, but I am most definitely not going to reverse any block that has been reviewed at ANI. I'll also note that Wikid77 isn't blocked and that his conduct has been above reproach for a long time here, which means that indeed, his perspective would be entirely welcome. MLauba 21:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, just an observer but, you know, when the founder of wikipedia weighs in, maybe it's time to make an exception to unbanning people. This is kind of an exceptional instance don't you think? One of the issues is that alternate opinions are being banned unfairly. So that fact that it's been "reviewed" does not necessarily substantiate that the ban was fair. It's really easy to just claim something like this when the people who were banned are not there to defend themselves. (173.10.96.65 (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

As a Misplaced Pages novice who has been observing this page for several months, might I suggest that the comments of Mr Wales should be taken seriously. Some respect and humility from some of the individuals who have taken control of the page would not go amiss. This is a controversial case, as anyone who follows the news or browses the internet will realise. It is controversial because the decision of the Italian court in 2009 and the processes leading up to conviction in terms of evidence gathering and prosecutorial conduct have been called into question by a number of named and respected individuals in both the UK and USA, many of whom have considerable experience in jurisprudence or evidence gathering. Their opinions have not been represented on this page and they have been dismissed as ‘individuals with a point of view’, despite the fact that they have clearly investigated the details of the case and have verifiably revealed its shortcomings. In my view, for the article merely to parrot the verdict of the 2009 trial as a neutral point of view without reflecting the deficiencies in the prosecution case, does not do justice to the subject. Some editors have been ignored or blocked simply because their views to not chime with those who control the page. May I suggest that some of these editors, PhanuelB, for example be reinstated and their contributions reassessed by editors who have been completely unconnected with this entry so far. NigelPScott (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Having just noticed this discussion, I'm a bit gobsmacked. The first thing is that Jimbo Wales is jumping in to promote the point of view of a blog that is, by its own admissions, an advocacy site for a particular point of view. OK, this is Jimbo's project, but I thought it was supposed to be built on principles of consensus and NPOV. Looking at the open letter on that site, it makes some claims which are specific and easy to verify, and others that are very vague. Like FormerIP, I picked out a very easily verifiable claim, that the current article "for the most part relies on obsolete and inaccurate British tabloid reports". Sorry, but that is complete bollocks. So, for me, the credibility of the whole thing starts to look pretty doubtful. Now, people are suggesting that we reinstate PhanuelB. A quick Google search of that name makes it clear that a person of that name is trying to fuel a controversy about the murder. So how is that person well-placed to write neutrally about any controversy? I seem to remember that when PhanuelB was editing here, people tried very hard to get him or her to make reasonable suggestions about improving the article but he or she seemed unwilling to enter into any consensus process. We could fill the article up with the opinions of a lot of people, with all possible shades of views, and all of whom have managed to get published. However, we have instead been trying to achieve neutrality by centring the article on verifiable events, rather than opinions (although I don't think we have overlooked all the opinions). Personally, I believe this is the most encyclopaedic approach. That's why I've invested a lot of time and effort in the article (along with a lot of others here). But if the consensus is that the article should give up reporting factual events, and instead should major in saying that Italy is a third world country where people are guilty until proved innocent and that the present trial was just a kangaroo court and a public lynching (all citable from the "sources" quoted in the open letter), please go ahead, but without me. Bluewave (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very pleased to see Mr Wales participating in the discussion. I am hopeful that PhanuelB will be reinstated very quickly. His voice should have never been silenced and is much needed now. BruceFisher (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This line of discussion seems slightly odd to me. I am not sure why PhanuelB or any other editor who has been indefinitely blocked is required to make any changes to this article. Also, I once again strongly suggest that editors who want to affect change on this article make specific suggestions backed up by reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• We have dealt with activist editing before, I think we have a decent model for dealing with it. We could use an article RfC or we could use a level of protection and/or flagged revisions, we have the option of article parole and of course activist editors can be restricted or coached. It's very clear that some people think that Knox is innocent, and not all of them are saying this solely on the basis of her nationality. More eyes are needed, I think. Jimmy is right, though, that we should not only be fair but we should be seen to be fair. If the result is no different, well, so be it. Our articles on evolution will never satisfy some people but they meet very high standards of balance as a result of at least listening respectfully yo those people. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has been extremely controversial. Many feel that Amanda and Raffaele have been wrongfully convicted. Misplaced Pages only allows minimal discussion of this controversy. This information is considered "off topic" on the Meredith Kercher page. Keep in mind this is the only page currently available on Misplaced Pages to discuss the case. Even though this has been called “the trial of the century” and hundreds of articles have been written discussing the controversy, Misplaced Pages refuses to allow a separate page for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. There is absolutely no explanation for this decision. This will be one of the biggest stories of the decade, yet Misplaced Pages not only chooses to ignore this fact, they prohibit anyone from creating a page to detail the events. How can Misplaced Pages be called an encyclopedia when they pick and choose what events in history they will permit discussion of? BruceFisher (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Scott Peterson has his own page, and he is less famous in the world than Amanda Knox. That alone shows bias. Can someone please explain to me why a page for Amanda Knox is not allowed.BruceFisher (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

While your argument is unconvincing, I agree with your position. However, you are unlikely to gain much support for your position here. In fact, I am convinced that the editors on this page will never allow an Amanda Knox article. However, as they have pointed out, the proper way to address this issue is not through this page. They tell us that we need to create an article and then try to get the consensus from the most recent articles for deletion action overturned. I have set up a page for making a Knox article here and you are more than welcome to edit it. I have not, because I believe that all time I devote to that will be wasted unless people agree in concept that a Knox article is warranted. Again, the place for that argument doesn't seem to be here, and with this group of well organized editors against such an article, I doubt that the article will ever exist, despite my strong belief that WP policy clearly supports such an article. If you would like to discuss this further, I suggest we discuss this at my talk page or another venue, as it really doesn't belong. I also suggest looking at the archives on this page for past discussions. It will allow you to understand the arguments against inclusion so that you can better craft a Knox article and/or arguments in support of one.LedRush (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bluewave, your post perfectly encapsulates all that is wrong with this page. While a small coterie of like minded editors have been preciously seeking to preserve the entry in aspic as a summary of a faulty trial, the world has moved on. Wake up and smell the coffee. The reason why millions of people Google 'Amanda Knox' is because the trial is controversial and the Perugian judicial system stinks. Misplaced Pages needs to reflect this controversy, not pretend it doesn't exist and post 'case closed'. NigelPScott (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of being part of a "coterie of like minded editors", when I'm not. Also please don't claim to know what I'm seeking to do, when you clearly do not know. You are entitled to believe that the "Perugian judicial system stinks" but that is an extraordinary claim and you would need to find extraordinary sources if you want it to be reflected in the article. Bluewave (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• As has been pointed out to PhanuelB and many others, all it ever takes to be able to discuss any issues is two things, first to avoid attacking other editors, second, at least a tiny bit of willingness to listen and accept other people's arguments. The proponents of a view closer to the Open Letter who understand this are not blocked and have been participating to the discussions here. MLauba 23:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am an Italian user on it.wikipedia, I give my contribute here as I see this discussion page. I must disagree with mr. Wales on his assessment of this "source list", as he writes: " I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. (..) But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.) " In fact, I think there is a wider aspect of the issue not to overlook: this "list" of sources is in fact an example of edit creating a NPOV problem. It is fair to say that comentators expressed criticism in a summary form. But those sources are not all reliable nor relevant, some of them (like Paul Ciolino) even changed opinion later. The case of a pulitzer on the New York times prize would deserve itself a mention, but it is possible to verify that while these commentors are famous, as journalists they are in fact not acknowledged with details of the case and part of the information they bring can be proven wrong. Hence I disagree as Wales defines them as "sources" without thorough assessment, the attribution of such a label seems hasty to me: the definition as source for them is dubious at least and should be researched putting caveats for each of them. They are commentators, not sources, they never provided accurate information or coverage of the case, in fact they never provided any coverage at all. By quoting them as if they were sources, as contributors that can be found on a scientific level, in fact we would obviously violate NPOV. Because they are in fact irrelevant, the list of them as "sources" may just have the efect to enlarge disproportionally a collateral discussion, and ultimately this amount of space to secondary judgement an opinions produces a change in the balance of information. Their relevance woud be not proportionate to their importance among information and sources about the case. Because their credibility is not established in relation to the murder case and because they are not really directly related, they produce in fact a change of topic: not focused on the page Murder of Meredith Kercher, but about a media phenomenon. As related to the case on a secondary level, this kind of commenters should maybe be considered under a proper chapter like "journalism" or "media show", or "opinions" or "emotional impact of the case on media", maybe even "activism". But in a summary form, without "taking the scene" and altering the balance and focus of the page, and they shall not be inserted as if they were sources. I think Misplaced Pages shall not follow and appease media stream, its value really is its potential to provide a quality standard. Aki 001 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Jimmy, one of the last times this came up at ANI, I took a look at the article (for the first time), and in my view the article was surprisingly neutral given the controversy surrounding the case. That was some months ago and the article may have changed considerably in the meantime, but what happens if we all take another look and decide that the complaints from a blog writer pushing a very definite point of view are without merit? What will you do then? Resolute 01:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to look at an article and know whether "smoking guns" have been systematically edited out. I've read various post mortems about murder cases gone wrong (Leonard Peltier etc.) and I would say that when second guessing a prosecution often the most damning details are very subtle. Someone could take them out and an onlooker might never notice, but it would take away the whole case.

There is absolutely no reason why we should not welcome the help of an offline advocacy group in tracking down interesting new sources for an article. NPOV is not some imaginary monochromatic gray - it is a play between all the colors of the ideological spectrum, working together to produce a panchromatic white light that can pull out every shade from what it illumines. You just have to make sure that you're putting stuff in, not taking stuff out, and all will be well. Wnt (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I just took a stab at the first "false claim" they mentioned, the luminol and the bloody footprints. The Daily Beast source cited backs up what the article says - but it also says that the defense showed video of the person collecting evidence which showed (they imply) that she hadn't changed gloves when she testified she had (and should have). So the claims of crime scene contamination have much better backing than just the letter from the American academics which is cited. The article currently presents the prosecution's evidence and not that from the defense. This is just one dot of one "i" that I looked at, but it was missing - and so I say the petition's claims deserve careful examination as Jimbo says.

I would further say in general that I spotted some sources reporting from a time when the prosecution had presented but the defense had not had a chance to rebut. Such sources can be used, but because they don't show both sides we have to be very cautious to make sure that we don't miss covering the other side of the story. I think that specifically labeling all sources like this with something like (interim coverage of prosecutor's case) is actually worth doing here. Wnt (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This goes the issue of how to reach NPOV in an article like this, which would be a discussion well worth having. One possible view would be that we give extensive coverage to the case of the prosecution on the one hand and the case of the defence on the other. But it isn't obvious that this should be our standard (I think our article already leans too far in that direction). How would it apply, for example, in the case of Harold Shipman or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi? I rather think it should be about considering sources on their individual merits. Three will always be scope for improving the article.

I guess my point is that, if the article doesn't conform to your conception of what NPOV should be, then that is a good reason to raise the issue. But I don't accept that it would be a good reason to assume that the article must be being sat on by collection of crooked and oppressive editors.

By the way, thank you for going to trouble of spot-checking one of the claims in the blog. I don't think it's surprising that the material checks out given the number of eyes that have been on the article. But there's our headline. --FormerIP (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a blog claim. Amanda's appeal (English summary ) discusses the "Luminol revealed footprints" starting at page 114 and points out that they tested negative for blood. It's just one of many article claims sourced to early news reports written before the defense case was presented. Statements in the forensic evidence section sourced to the judge's report on Guede's trail where no defense case for the other two suspects was presented also have this same problem. Another issue is In the "Events Surrounding the Murder" section. The witness report of hearing a scream and 11 PM time of death were disputed at trail. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has been exceedingly polite and professional in his treatment of this article. The fact is that there is no argument for redirecting "Amanda Knox" to "Murder of Meredith Kercher", since "O.J. Simpson" does not redirect to "Murder of Nicole Simpson", "Ed Gein" does not redirect to "Murder of (any of Gein's victims)", and so on and so forth. I am shocked that regular contributors to Misplaced Pages are unable to see the way in which this simple mechanism breaks NPOV. Can Misplaced Pages really afford the publicity of a group of its writers and editors getting together to try to manipulate public perception of an ongoing criminal investigation? The answer is unequivocally "no", and in pursuing this behavior you are directly contributing to the fiscal problems that have plagued this site since its inception. --User:Jcities (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is exactly right and I hope he gets that there has been a clamp down, not just limited to reliable sources and not just limited to not allowing a page for Amanda Knox. The people who have been blocked don't want a this or a that page, just an article that is neutral. As it is, it is not. That is not attributable merely to exclusion of reliable sources or any other specific limitation that preserves the integrity of the bias, it is an agenda for the page, which is against Misplaced Pages's rules.Perk100 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

Perhaps the article should be called "The Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito", or something to that effect. I'm not sure that separate pages for people involved in the case are necessary. The article is about the trial and the international media coverage around it, which is what makes the topic noteworthy, not the murder itself.Perk100 (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Perk100

GA assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Element One: Single Event

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

Element Two: Low Profile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User-space draft bio page about Amanda Knox

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

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

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

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

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

Element One: Single Event

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

Element Two: Low Profile

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She "stood by" her accusation of Lumumba, but said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder.

This paraphrase seems slanted. Her exact words are

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

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

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

Sources to incorporate

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

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

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

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

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

These are just sources I found in about two seconds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Thoughts Upon Coming Back to Misplaced Pages

My opinion of Misplaced Pages has improved markedly over the past few days as Mr. Wales has taken an active and thoughtful interest in this case. DreamGuy’s analysis of the situation could not be fairer or more accurate.

If Mr. Wale’s involvement here has been treated with skepticism and hostility, you must imagine what it was like for those who, like me, are mere nobodies who took exception to the slant of the article. I have a doctorate and two masters degrees and have done research for a living all my adult life. I joined Misplaced Pages with the idea that I might actually be able to make a useful contribution. Last September I found myself on the point of being banned because in frustration I had said some intemperate things. Instead I just walked away, vowing never to sign in again. I spent my time instead informing my friends and colleagues in the teaching profession why Misplaced Pages could break down in the face of controversy and fanaticism, and I used the Kercher-Knox-Sollecito article as my prime example. Quite honestly I have seldom if ever in a long career witnessed the levels of sophistry and intellectual dishonesty that I witnessed here.

Those are strong words and I am prepared to write a lengthy white paper detailing both the flaws in the article and in the process--if need be. For the talk page, let me just express some thoughts on goals for the article and some strategies for reaching them.

1) All of us must accept the fact that the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are genuinely controversial. This is as important a “fact” as there is about this issue. The idea that the concerns about the case could have been manufactured by some tiny Seattle public relations firm is intellectually embarrassing, as is the notion that the controversy is a manifestation of the “cult of Foxy Knoxy.” This case is controversial because credentialed experts, with access to all of the case documents, have examined the evidence and found it wanting. 2) All of must accept the fact that the defense put on a vigorous case here. There is not a single argument made by the prosecution for which the defense has not formulated a plausible and convincing rebuttal. They have done this with everything—statements, witnesses, DNA, luminol, computer and cell phone records, the so called “staged break-in”—all of it.

If a Misplaced Pages reader comes to this article and gets the impression that there is no controversy and that the defense failed to address the main prosecution allegations, we have failed miserably.

In order to make satisfactory progress from here, I would argue that several things have to happen.

1. There has to be a general amnesty for all Misplaced Pages editors who were banned. I would never say that things did not get out of hand at times, but the provocation was extreme. And the fact is that the administrators of this article have succeeded in banning some of their best informed and most effective opponents. We need them back to make the article better. 2. I would recommend that Mr. Wales appoint a single, genuinely neutral administrator to oversee a substantial revision to the article. This person should be tough minded but fair to all. Charity toward all and guff from none should be the motto. 3. I believe it would be best to put the information on Meredith Kercher in one article but have a separate Misplaced Pages article entitled “The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.” This approach was accepted in the Laci/Scott Peterson case and it works well. 4. We must have a genuine commitment to make progress toward a substantial revision each day. That is, there can be no stalling, no putting a comma in in the morning and taking it out in the afternoon. The new administrator has to crack the whip and get both sides to act in good faith and move quickly. 5. We need to include an adequate discussion of a number of closely related issues, specifically:

--The powerful evidence against Rudy Guede and the history of his encounters with the police in the 30 days prior to the meeting. --The conviction of prosecutor Mignini, with specific reference to the sentencing report detailing his felonious abuse of office. --The fact that under the vagaries Italian law certain parties, notably the victim’s family and their lawyer, have a strong financial incentive in seeing the conviction sustained. This is tough but fair commentary under the circumstances.

My biases are, of course, perfectly clear. But I truly do understand that the purpose of a Misplaced Pages article is not to rehash the defense brief. I recommend that we use a method employed by a group of distinguished Arab and Israelite scholars who tried to write a joint account of the history of the Middle East. We must build the article around the conceded facts while briefly describing the areas where we are apart, I realize full well that we cannot resolve the issue here and we can’t debate each issue ad nauseum. If there is a genuine commitment to turning this terribly slanted article into a text book example of how Misplaced Pages works at its best, I am willing to spend a considerable amount of time helping out. PietroLegno (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. I have not been here in months because of the environment but now that it is improving, I'm ready to edit. With fairness.--Lilome (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd recommend that those who have since departed and returned upon hearing this Good News proceed slowly and confine their edits to the talk page. If your points are valid and backed up by sources, other hopefully uninvolved editors will add them. The worst thing anyone could do would be to incite edit warring in the midst of productive discussion. Obviously those who do so will be blocked anyway, but suffice to say that those who don't want that to happen can still make great contributions through their knowledge of sources on the talk page. Ocaasi 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you both. I have no intention at all of editing the main article until we have an agreement on how we can fairly proceed. Having said this, I think fairness demands that there must be a broad amnesty for editors banned as part of an non-neutral process. PietroLegno (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

While I generally agree, I don't think that editing the article in a constructive way, with reliable sources, is an "incitement to edit warring" and definitely should not lead to blocks. Furthermore, there is no reason to consider the group of editors who patrol this page to be uninvolved (and somehow immune for the odd blocking threat for merely making constructive edits) while anyone who thinks the article could improve both its scope and it's neutrality are involved and require heavy handed threats. While I understand the need to move slowly and develop consensus, I think this type of comment is a manifestation of exactly why these issues fester and never get resolved.LedRush (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I meant no past involvement, not uninvolved as in completely neutral. There's a particular risk of inciting old squabbles here. And not all of the people who were banned were angels, I take it. I just want the good ones to be able to be heard rather than the ones who will see this as an opportunity to advance a POV to drown out the whole discussion. Keeping good editors on the talk page primarily will keep the signal:noise ratio high. Obviously, anyone can do anything they think is within policy, and I'm not an admin anyway, so I won't be banning. I just meant that the attention this page is receiving now means that people who move contentiously will be seen and likely not in a good light. FWIW I don't see any difference with putting reliable sources in a draft on the talk page before adding them. I also have no problem with constructive, sourced edits from anyone. But be careful, since others may interpret things through the lens of past actions. That's what I meant. Ocaasi 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea of a "general amnesty". There's no obvious reason why this article is different from any other. If editors were improperly banned - for example, as "sock puppets" or "meat puppets" for no other reason than that they agreed with an existing group of editors - then this needs to be confronted directly. The problems in policy, or with administrators violating policy, need to be identified and fixed. If there are wronged editors here, let's see a list of their names and grievances before we start cheering on an amnesty that may or may not be deserved. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If you got an indefinite that you think was unwarranted, go through the normal process. If you did something that bad, why should you get amnesty?LedRush (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was one. My INDEF block, added by user: Black Kite, is noted as being for "sockpuppetry". I have one account. One user name, tjholme. No one else logs in from my IP. I threatened no one. Vandalized nothing. Used no vulgar language. I was called an SPA and unceremoniously banned after arguing against user:PhanuelB's INDEF. No evidence of sockpuppetry was presented. This same basic scenario was played out again and again last Fall on virtually anyone that strayed from the approved narrative implying Knox's guilt. I suggest we remove all of the blocks and start fresh with the aim of actually creating something really fair and balanced. tjholme 67.168.126.17 (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just appeal the block and ask to come back? I don't see why this can't be done on a case-by-case basis.LedRush (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So was Black Kite the only admin doing these contested blocks? If it's determined that he was acting improperly, it could be appropriate to undo all of his blocks, regardless of the article involved. Wnt (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite was the primary and most aggressive 'enforcer' (to borrow a hockey term) but he acted with the full knowledge and support of a number of senior admins. One only need review the block logs to see the same handful of names coming up over and over to sustain Black Kite's actions. tjholme 67.168.126.17 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than blame specific administrators, I think the problem is the standard don't bite the newcomers policy Misplaced Pages:BITE gets reversed on controversial articles. Instead of getting a welcome to Misplaced Pages message or gentle warnings, new editors to this article that believed that Knox was innocent were treated as conspiracy theorists and confronted harshly. For example, the first message on user:PhanuelB's talk page was that he was suspected of being a sockpuppet. Users were sometimes goaded into making statements about administrators being unfair that were then used as an excuse for banning. Even as an experienced editor, I felt uncomfortable in many of the discussions about this article. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Biased language

To explain why I think so many people are upset about this article, I just wanted to analyze the use of a single word "testified". This is a strong word, carrying connotations of speaking solemnly under oath in a court of law. It can be contrasted with weaker words such as "claimed" or "maintained" or "said". Let's look at some appearances of "testimony", "testified", etc.

1. "At 8:40 pm on the night of the murder, witness testimony placed Knox at Sollecito's flat." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

2. "a police officer testified that Knox had only been questioned "firmly but politely"" - negative to Knox and Sollecito

3. "An officer testified that shards of glass from the broken window were found on top of a computer and clothes that had been strewn around the room, suggesting that the window had been broken after the room had been ransacked." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

4. "Sollecito maintained that he was at his apartment, using his computer, but police computer analysts testified that his computer had not been used between 9:10 on the evening of the murder and 5:32 the next morning." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

5. "Their version of events was contradicted by a homeless man, who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito chatting animatedly on a basketball court," - negative to Knox and Sollecito

6. "A Perugia shopkeeper testified that Knox had gone to his supermarket at 7:45 on the morning after the murder, at a time when Knox was, according to her account, still at Sollecito's." - negative to Knox and Sollecito

Do you see the overall trend in this passage? Instances of claims by Knox and Sollecito are things that they "maintained" about their "version" of events. Claims by others are "testimony" or things that they "testified" to.

There are some positive instances of "testified" for Knox and Sollecito, but the overwhelming trend is to treat anything they say as "claims" or things they "maintained". The only instance of Knox "testifying" is this: "Knox testified that she regarded Kercher as her friend and had no reason to kill her." But we expect that from killers, no?

What's important is to follow the sources. Let me give one example in more depth.

We say: "Sollecito maintained that he was at his apartment, using his computer, but police computer analysts testified that his computer had not been used between 9:10 on the evening of the murder and 5:32 the next morning." Sollecito maintained it, but the experts testified. What does the source say? It doesn't say that anyone testified - it treats both sides fairly using parallel language. Everyone in the story "said" or "told" their story.

Notice that I have only analyzed, in only minor detail, one aspect of the language in the story. Language is layered, complex, meaningful, interesting. The words that we use carry weight. When all the words in a story line up in a strong general direction, we give a strong impression of someone's editorial perspective. This is not best practice for Misplaced Pages.

Notice that I have not, in this short note, explored issues relating to selectivity in sources. That too, is an important issue, and I will continue to research so that I might comment in an informed manner on that as well.

But I trust that everyone will quickly agree - even if you don't agree with every aspect of what I have said here - that language of "testimony" for the prosecution with language of "claimed" and "maintained" and "said" for the defense is inappropriate bias - and especially so when it is something that we have added, not in the sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be fair comment. Change "testified" to "said" to "maintained" as much as you like. --FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel like all of those (1-6) are merely presenting the facts. We can't argue every single piece of evidence, and we can present what happened in a neutral tone, as we've done. If there is evidence that contradicts the neutral statements that can be incorporated without becoming a retrial of such evidence, we can add it. If there's minor wordsmithing to be done, smith it.LedRush (talk) 02:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a guideline WP:CLAIM about this. Wnt (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I love Misplaced Pages. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Testimonies opposed by other testimonies: Unfortunately, the word "testified" is correct for statements which the witnesses said in court, or when Knox testifed in court, whereas Sollecito did not testify (on the stand), but he did make impromptu statements such as saying that the watery blood-footprint on the blue bathmat was not his. However, in general, the article had been worded, last spring, to balance the offset of one witness testimony as opposed by another testimony, such as:

"The shopkeeper testified to seeing a woman with intense blue eyes at the store, but then he testified as only seeing the side of her face, unable to explain knowing the color of her eyes. Sollecito's former housekeeper also worked at that store, on the morning noted, and testified she did not see Knox there. About the possible use of bleach, the police testified about concerns of a clean-up, but Sollecito's new housekeeper testified there was no smell of bleach at his apartment, and the 2 bottles of bleach had the same level of contents as when she last used them. The postal police officer testified he did not step into the room to contaminate the scene, but Luca A. who pushed the door open testified he saw the officer enter, and Paola G. testified the officer entered."

Anywhere there was a witness testifying, there was probably another of the 200 witnesses (at some time) to refute those claims: some witnesses admitted to payment for media interviews. Sollecito had computer people testify that his computer was used stand-alone for a longer period of time, but I did not find any testimony to refute the Internet Service Provider (ISP) reporting a long period of inactivity over the network. Complicating those issues, there has been talk that Sollecito's computer was used/modified (by some unknown person) while he was away at the police station, being interrogated before being arrested. In a case like that, the implications of tampering are so strong, that it is likely sufficient to merely say some expert "claimed" his computer was used during the night he was interrogated. Last year, the article's wording had been chosen to try to offset the opposing viewpoint in similarly strong wording. Knox had planned to work at the pub Le Chic that night, and Sollecito had planned to drive a friend on errands that night, but Knox's boss left a message to cancel work and Sollecito's friend cancelled the car trip (both of which were confirmed by witness testimonies). The defense used those events to show no evidence of a pre-planned 3-person "let's go torture the roommate" for the night. Bottomline: The balance in the article comes from having more text to oppose each point, rather than just changing a few words. Plus, there are WP:RS sources to refute almost any point made on either side (which means yet another footnote to balance a claim), so that is why the article became so huge and would need to be huge to explain all those concerns. When explaining the alphabet, Misplaced Pages cannot omit most letters in "ABC...XYZ" simply to make the alphabet article smaller, and WP should not omit major points of evidence to make the Knox/Sollecito text smaller. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Events surrounding the murder

I corrected a minor error in this section. Meredith spent the evening with three friends not two. But it still needs a rewrite to make sense to any reader not already familiar with the case.

On the evening of the murder, the flat where Meredith was murdered was empty. The two Italian flatmates were out of town and Amanda was at her boyfriends. The four men that lived in the downstairs flat were also out of town. Meredith had dinner and watched a DVD movie with three other English women. Meredith left for home around 8:45 PM, walking with one of her English friends, then parting company to walk the remaining distance on her own. She would have arrived at the flat shortly after 9 PM. Some time later that evening she was murdered.

The statements about the "chilling scream" and estimated time of death belong in the trial section, not here.--Footwarrior (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fine, but also, I really wanted to say all those events were pieced together from interviewing 200? witnesses (including the 3 at the dinner) about the events that night, and then forming a timeline chronology of events. Doesn't that seem a fair approach? I think some people had used that section to state "God-given" facts about the murder to suit a POV slant. Whereas the suspects could only claim something happened, that section was considered written in stone. -Wikid77 07:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This section should be for events that are not disputed. Both sides of this case agree that Meredith spent the early evening with her English friends and that none of the residents were at her flat at the time she started walking home. The phone calls the next day are from phone company records, not witness testimony. --Footwarrior (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the following sentence is not supported by its citation and is also false: “At 12:08 pm the following day, Knox called a flatmate,:346 telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing.:16-7” The citation (in English translation of the Massei report found here: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=259) actually says: “she was in the car with her friend Paola Grande, she received a phone call: it was Amanda letting her know that there was something strange. She had arrived and had found the door open: she had had a shower and it had seemed to her that there was some blood; moreover she said that she was going to Raffaele's place (declarations of Romanelli page 31, hearing of February 7, 2009). To her (Filomena's) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.” p29-30.

No mention is made of the discovery of a broken window ( which Knox says she discovered later), and it is quite a twist to get ‘said Meredith was missing’ out of ‘To her (Filomena's) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.’ For Knox to have reported Meredith as 'missing' in the context of Knox coming to her cottage in mid day makes no sense anyway. In addition to being simply wrong, I believe the sentence intends to give the impression that Knox actively wants to set the stage for the coming discovery of the crime, a conclusion not based on the citation. It is hard to believe that this was unintended. Moodstream (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, the broken window was mentioned in a later phone conversation with Filomena. If I recall correctly, I was the editor who put these words in the article and certainly didn't intend to imply that Amanda was setting up some clever scheme. Perhaps we should mention that Amanda called one of Meredith's phones first, then called Filomena, then tried both of Meredith's phones again. When Filomena called back, she was told about the broken window. Do you have any suggestions on wording? --Footwarrior (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Expanding this part of the article is probably appropriate, but we don't want to bog the reader down in trivial details about phone calls. The important facts are that Amanda returns to the cottage, tries phoning Meredith, calls Filomena and discusses her concerns and eventually has Raffaele call the police. The Postal Police show up unexpectedly just before Filomena returns with her friends. Then the door to Meredith's room is forced and her body discovered. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that every line in this section is burdened, and the sum is negative towards Knox. This case is very controversial. In the end, any rewrite that wants to claim neutrality must develop and explain the legitimacy of the controversy. Just these lines for example, ‘At 12:08 pm the following day, Knox called a flatmate,:346 telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, a broken window, some blood, and that Meredith was missing.:16-7 She also called Kercher's two mobile phones.:346 At 12:51 pm and 12:54 pm, Sollecito made calls to 112, the Italian emergency number.:342' skew the reader towards guilt by overlooking Knox's explanation - she spent the night at her boyfriends, walked home to shower and change and then to return to her boyfriend for a day trip. Only when she stepped out of the shower did she notice blood stains on the shower pad. She returned to her boyfriend to discuss the condition of the cottage. From there she called Filomena. Together they returned to the cottage. After inspecting the property, they decided to call the Carabinieri.

Of course that story does not have to be the truth. But ignoring it creates an impression that Knox hung around her flat from 12:08 to 12:51 idly, not reporting the crime, which is unsupported. Moreover, I understand that it has been a tremendous effort to have this page reflect the fact that Knox and Sollecito without inducement called the police to report the status of the cottage. While this is reflected in the line ‘Sollecito made calls to 112, the Italian emergency number.’ , I find this rather weak language for what has explosive implications for the trial – that is, if guilty, Knox/Sollecito have decided call the Carabinieri knowing there is a house full of evidence for the Carabinieri to find. --Moodstream (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

An earlier version of the article

For those who are new to this article, this old version was pointed out to me as significantly more detailed in some respects than what we have now. I have found it useful, and suspect that others will as well. Of course it is old, and out of date in some important respects. But at 155,000 bytes, compared with today's 70,000 bytes... it has a lot more information, some of which should likely be revived.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and look through the archives and see why specific sections were or were not included. And it would be very helpful if you stop talking in such vague ways. Raise specific issues - rather than talking about 70 odd kB of material as being "useful" perhaps you could say what you think we should concentrate more on. This talkpage has often suffered from being a general discussion on the topic rather than for specific issues focused on improving the article. Quantpole (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how it's vague to say that an old version may have material worth including. Not every comment will be extremely detailed and specific. I also think Jimbo is trying to point in the right direction but not take specific actions himself considering his position. When I have time I intend to look at the old version and see what might get moved. I suspect, though, that with the numerous new reliable sources out there currently which go into more depth than most of the early tabloid reports that it might be more beneficial overall to focus on newer material. But both should be considered and weighed. DreamGuy (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DreamGuy. Quantpole, if you don't feel like reviewing 70 odd kB of material, then please don't. There's no requirement to do so. However, it is really not helpful to attack people who are working to get up to speed in order to be able to help. I am going through the archives, but as I have said repeatedly, I choose not to make specific recommendations until I know what is going on. So, be patient, and please don't try to prevent me from working thoughtfully with others to review the entire situation.

The case is complicated. And by that I mean both the case of the murder and the case of how the article got to be how it is today. And some of what has happened is good, of course. And some of what has happened is quite clearly not Misplaced Pages at its best.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Egads. What some may call "significantly more detailed" I would call "extremely verbose, bloated, and over-detailed", after slogging through that 150k. I do not believe an encyclopedia should be a painfully-detailed recounting over every step of the investigation. This is a broad overview of the "murder of Meredith Kercher"; what happened, who was involved, what the current status is, and what the public reactions are. Brevity is the soul of wit after all, and even at 70k this is still a fairly in-depth coverage of the affair. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and goodbye

I have devoted time to trying to improve this article and, in particular, trying to avoid its becoming a platform for any of the many and varied bloggers who have an opinion about the subject matter. Now, we are going round this same argument again but, this time with Jimbo Wales himself promoting the views of the bloggers. I don't have a strong view on the guilt or innocence of any of the accused, but I do have strong views on what makes a great encyclopedia. Finding that these views differ so sharply from Jimbo's (as exemplified by the version of the article that he has recently posted), it is clear that I am in the wrong place. So, thanks to all the great people I have worked with here at Misplaced Pages; good luck to all who are working on this article in the future; and goodbye. Bluewave (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I will endeavor always not to personalize things, but I cannot let this editor's comment to pass unchallenged. The older version of the article that Jimbo posted is obviously more neutral than the current version, but I can understand why this editor is upset. His activities are one of the principal reasons the article reached such a sorry state. He was endlessly creative in his invention of pretexts to keep solid information out. The very first edit I made on the article--a small thing, of no real consequence--this editor reverted within minutes. Not only this, but he then followed me to an ancillary article and reverted that too. The falsely polite note he sent did not mask the hostility of the intent. I too have strong views on what makes a good encyclopedia and it more closely aligns with Jimbo Wales' vision. The idea is to get it right and that means seeking good information wherever we can find it. PietroLegno (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If he's really retired then it's a moot point and not worth rehashing. Let's always move forward. And if he decides to stay, that's great too. It sounds like he chooses to believe Jimbo is taking a side when all he is doing is focusing on the policies this project was built upon. When he sees how the article progresses maybe he'll be pleasantly surprised and continue on editing. DreamGuy (talk) 13:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I'll leave behind old grievances as we move forward. PietroLegno (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Crikey Peter–as endeavours go that one just renders one speechless. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Coverage in Misplaced Pages reflects coverage in sources

Many who have tried to steer the contents of the article seemed to forget that Misplaced Pages's coverage of a subject is expected to reflect the coverage in the WP:RS reliable sources, not provide a balance of "all 17 viewpoints" which does not exist in the world at large. If many sources had stated Meredith Kercher's music video was destined for major awards, and her British friends were all hatefully jealous of her success and plotted to attack her (not actually stated in sources), then the article would have contained similar text, to reflect the preponderance of the sources. However, instead, we find headlines in a Swedish report, as follows:

• Donald Trump: "Frige Amanda Knox" - Nyhetspressen.se ("Free Amanda Knox")

When something is reported, all over the world, including as headlines in Swedish, it is common practice in Misplaced Pages to consider that as part of the preponderance of views about the subject. Misplaced Pages is not an advocacy site to ensure judicial fairness, and cannot force Swedish headlines to state "Frige John Doe" just because Amanda Knox received more publicity than a "John Doe". That is why the article should have focused on the coverage as seen in the numerous sources, rather than an each-person-gets-5000-words balance being imposed on the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting each person gets 5000 words. On the other hand, what gets coverage in Sweden may be (and from your example appears to be) unrepresentative of coverage of the world as a whole. We also have to look at how notable something is. Talking about Donald Trump's little bit of rather shallow news coverage for expressing an opinion while ignoring the considerable amount of more in depth coverage Steve Moore and Douglas Preston have received that tackles details of the case is very odd. And, overall, the thing most lacking in this article is the views of Knox and Sollecito's lawyers, which is extremely unbalancing. I think the opinions of Donald Trump could be included in a short section on celebrity reactions (which might include Fox News pundits and the actress in the Knox telefilm saying she supports Knox now), but mentioning him while ignoring more detailed and expert sources with more coverage is not acceptable. DreamGuy (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an active discussion on this above. The issue is that this case has seen an extraordinary amount of coverage, and that coverage (the amount and substance) is itself notable. When reflecting the coverage in this article, we should try to remain proportional to the type of coverage, not give equal time to each side. Of course, this is extremely hard to quantify and define, but that should be the goal. The current problem is that there is little in the article about the coverage generally, and the article implies that any pro-Knox coverage is primarily due to her PR campaign. That is, of course, unprovable and ridiculous. We should just stick to the facts and report on the actual coverage. If there is extremely different coverage in certain counties, we could even break the section out that way.LedRush (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that "the article implies that any pro-Knox coverage is primarily due to her PR campaign". I would say though that at the moment there is relatively little information about the support of Knox given how much coverage it has received. This is a major part of the article and so should receive better coverage. Ideally sources would be ones that summarise the situation. An example would be (from a quick look - I am sure there may be more or better) this. Quantpole (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the header "The Knox PR Campaign" has been deleted, thus deleting the implication to which I referred.LedRush (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Case of Charlie Wilkes

I have recommended a blanket amnesty for editors who were banned on the flimsiest of pretexts. Nothing illustrates the need for this step more clearly than the treatment of Charlie Wilkes. He recently applied for reinstatement and was reflexively turned down by someone who calls himself “Sandstein.”

I am concerned that if banned editors are forced to jump through all the ordinary hoops they will all get the sort of vague, reflexive, not-very-thoughtful response that Sandstein provided. Charlie Wilkes unquestionably believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, and has maintained as much on his website and in numerous online discussions. He is also one of the most knowledge people on the planet about the details of the crime scene, trial, and press coverage in this case. I mean this literally.

In his work on Misplaced Pages Charlie has always been honorable and forthright. He could, of course, have chosen to sign up for Misplaced Pages using a completely fictitious name. Instead he chose to use a name that would be familiar to those who follow the case so that his beliefs would be transparent. As far as I can tell, Charlie’s main contribution to the article involved edits made on a single issue: whether Raffaele called before or after the police arrived. At trial it was conclusively established that the call was made before the police arrived just as Raffaele maintained all along. The trial judge accepted the defense claim. Charlie demonstrated this with great clarity and Misplaced Pages was improved as a result.

Is Charlie part of a “coordinated campaign”? I imagine he was one of the signatories of the online petition that drew Jimbo Wale’s interest. Would that mean that all 60 signatories to the petition should be banned? I sincerely hope not. If a group of James Joyce scholars got together and decided that the content of the article on the great Irish novelist could be improved would they be subject to banishment?

Surely, the real issue of concern is not a person’s known beliefs but how they behave as editors. There was nothing the slightest bit objectionable about Charlie’s informed commentary on the Knox-Sollecito trial. If we want to get it right—as opposed to playing silly games—we need people like him. PietroLegno (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Charlie Wilkes unquestionably believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent, and has maintained as much on his website and in numerous online discussions ... Is Charlie part of a 'coordinated campaign'?" Well, there is your statement that Mr Wilkes contributes to other websites. How do you know this much about him, may I ask? I've long had a suspicion about off-site influence with regard to this topic... "Surely, the real issue of concern is not a person’s known beliefs but how they behave as editors." Precisely. And avoiding advocate- and activist-style conduct would appear to be a good path to follow to avoid being blocked, am I right? SuperMarioMan 18:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for edit: Forensics Section

The article reads, "A further footprint, believed to be a woman's, was found under the body. It was the right size to be Knox's, although it was never matched to her footwear." The edit should change footprint to shoe-print. This was not a bare footprint. Massei did not conclude that this was Amanda's as he stated his belief that Amanda was barefoot during the murder.RoseMontague (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The word "footprint" has been changed to "shoe print". --Footwarrior (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit: Police Interviews Section

The article states: "She "stood by" her accusation of Lumumba, but said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder." I believe the "stood by" as presented in quotes is misleading. There is no such quote in the transcript that is linked to. In fact she states: "2. Why did I think of Patrik? 4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person? 3(her numbering). Who is the REAL murder ? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone in this instance." I don't believe even characterizing this as saying she "stood by her accusation" is entirely fair or accurate.RoseMontague (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair questions. But we know that she made the accusation. When did she retract it? Ian Spackman (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This section is also misleading by starting with Nov 5. It should be mentioned that Amanda and Raffaelle were questioned daily following the murder and maintained the same story until the all night interrogation on Nov 5--12.70.191.1 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)--Lilome (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were a cop reading this transcript the day after the 1:45 and 5:45AM statements, I would consider it a retraction of the false accusation.RoseMontague (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It was pointed out to me that her exact wording was "I stand by the statements I made last night that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." Then she went on to say the other things I quoted including asking who was the real killer. So in this case I don't think an edit is necessary but I do not feel that the level of her confirmation of those statements amounts to "standing by" them when she essentially goes on to contradict them. Perhaps a quote of her "who is the real murder(er)" might impart that level more accurately.

Request for Edit: Forensics Section

The article reads: "Knox's DNA was found on a kitchen knife, recovered from Sollecito's flat, and Kercher's DNA was found on the blade. The knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck. At trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment. A group of American academics wrote an open letter in 2009 expressing concern that contamination of this evidence was a possibility, noting in particular that, whilst DNA was found on the knife, tests for blood were negative."

The biggest issue that the defense has with "Kercher's DNA" found on the blade is missing from the article. Both appeals make it clear that the biggest issue is that the DNA was of LCN variety and proper LCN testing procedures were not done. That does reflect somewhat in the article's statement that "contamination of this evidence was a possibility" but is not given the importance that reflects reality.RoseMontague (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made that observation in the past, and agree with this edit request. This is an important distinction.LedRush (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I was canvassed via email to write this

I've quit Misplaced Pages - I think the project, as a whole, has been obviously compromised by individuals with interests divergent from creating a quality encyclopedia (namely, psuedoscientific cranks, and the profit-seeking shills that empower them). However, I attempted to mediate this dispute, and as such, I feel that the email I got asking me to write a brief summary of the problem would be helpful.

The underlying problem with this dispute is that Wikid77 is unable to restrain his exuberance to conduct original research about this generally non-noteworthy tabloid-fodder. It is readily apparent that he believes a close reading of some Very Important Facts by anyone as obviously good at Crime Scene Investigation from afar as he is would reveal the obvious fact that some other person killed Meredith Kercher. His unwillingness to act as an encyclopedic editor, focused on presenting reliable secondary sources led to a fully unproductive talk-page, consistent revert warring, and an uncooperative atmosphere, which persists to this very day.

I would ask that all participants review , and . Those two sections deal with the removal of the still completely unintelligible list of facts that Wikid77 thinks are crucial to including in the article - those facts are the basis of Jimbo's suggestion that the "earlier version of the article" be reviewed. I'll repeat my question, yet again, about the inclusion of those sections, and yet again, beg for a quick response. Then, assuming that Jimbo is even remotely paying attention to who is building an encyclopedia and who is playing armchair detective, I would hope that this is put to bed.

So, with that " a section in the article titled "Detailed forensics." It been removed multiple times, as it appear to have very little to do with the article, and not integrated at all with the text. Could someone explain what relevent about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end? Thanks."

Crossposted to Jimbotalk and the article talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about Wikid77's exuberance, other than an opinion that it's really a side issue to the issues we can and should be focused on.

There are several reasons to include detailed and well-sourced information about forensics and about the timeline on the night of the murder and of the days afterwards.

1. The public tends to find such information interesting and informative.
2. A presentation of the undisputed facts (and the disputed one, with neutral explanations of who disputes them) helps us to avoid silly POV-wars and "he said, she said" of simply reporting on what analysts have said about those facts
3. It is my view that the case appears to be genuinely controversial, even if we set aside press hype, anti-Americanism/anti-Italianism, etc. There are puzzling inconsistencies and much confused reporting. So focusing on the controversy alone risks leaving the reader puzzled as to why it is controversial

There are of course some reasons to be concerned about the overall length of the detailed factual material. It needs to be readable and not misleading. It needs to be careful to come from reliable sources only, and not from disputed sources.

Let me give just one tiny example to illustrate what I mean. Was Amanda Knox interrogated for hours without an attorney? Many sources say yes. FormerIP insisted no. That strikes me as a very easy thing to answer, and I think (but don't know yet and would happily be corrected) that the answer is that yes, she was interrogated for hours without an attorney, a process which produced a statement which she now says came under duress, but that technically she was interrogated "as a witness" rather than "as a suspect", leading to problems with the testimony being used in court. The testimony was in theory excluded from the murder trial, but since there was a civil action running concurrently, the court heard it anyway. Under US law, that wouldn't be appropriate, and is the sort of thing that gives rise to a feeling that the case was unfair. Under Italian law, I'm not sure.

The point I am making is key, so please don't respond to the previous paragraph except with this context in mind: the specific and uncontested details on issues like that matter, and simply reporting that "Knox and her lawyers say it was unfair, but the Prosecutor says it was fair" is just not useful to a reader. (We do say more than that, I am just making the broad case for inclusion of still more detail than we do now.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jimbo Wales, you had a hard time finding the section to which I refer. It is located at , and does not say a single word about the timeline of the interrogation. With that in mind, would you mind please responding to my question, which was " a section in the article titled "Detailed forensics." It been removed multiple times, as it appear to have very little to do with the article, and not integrated at all with the text. Could someone explain what relevant about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end? Thanks." If you believe there is an actionable edit that needs to be made, please suggest it so we can discuss it, as opposed to merely grandstanding about problems. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. February 2011 "Lifetime movie full of mistakes, says CBS News producer". CBS News. Retrieved 17 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
2. "Amanda Knox Movie Flunks Truthiness Test". Seattle Pi. Seattle. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 17 March 2011.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Unknown-importance Death articles
• C-Class Italy articles
• Unknown-importance Italy articles
• All WikiProject Italy pages
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Italy
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles