Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:15, 27 July 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: 10 days

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.

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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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.

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: 10 days

Template:Find sources notice

Partial Section Reorganization

This article might get out of its eternal POV conundrum if it were partially reorganized with the prosecution POV and defense POV separated. The beginning and final sections would stay the same.

Brmull (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My problem with this type of reorganization is the potential to mislead readers. Many theories have been postulated, and some of them have been either conclusively proven as false or challenged in a significant manner. By presenting such theories separate from the other party's response, you add to confusion and make it work for the reader to find which theories have been commented on by the other side, and how substantive that commentary is. I'm not a huge fan of the current structure of the article, but I don't see how we can separate out these ideas without adding massive confusion and POV issues. My guess is that until this case reaches a final conclusion, we're not going to find the optimal structure.LedRush (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the Prosecution and Defence Arguments section there are by my count 10 statements that are prosecution POV interspersed with 16 statements that are defence POV. The prosecution has the burden of making the case. It is impossible when almost every other sentence is given over to 1.6 sentences of defence POV. A lot of pro-defense editors are fine with this muddle but it is just a form of bad-faith editing. Brmull (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag - Time to remove?

Are there any outstanding issues which people believe are significant enough to merit the POV tag? I see issues, but the POV has been mitigated enough that I would classify them as content disputes. There are some issues which could balloon into POV ones, but people seem to have been on their best behavior these last 12 days or so, so I hope that the good will would carry over into dealing with any of those issues without a tag.LedRush (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to remove it. The editing has been remarkably collegial recently. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I need time to read the article again. I am not able to tonight. I ask that it is not removed at least through this weekend. Issymo (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a C-quality article. It is nowhere near being NPOV. The editors can't even agree on what is NPOV, with many apparently believing that any American media source is reliable and impartial, when in fact inaccuracy and bias of sources is rampant. I strongly disagree with removing the POV tag just because people feel it's not going to improve. A simple precaution like banning unattributed statements in secondary sources would make this article so much better. If commonsense is too much to ask then the POV tag should stay indefinitely. Brmull (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As just one example, the blood spots and mixed-DNA spots which are the most important evidence linking Knox to the scene of the crime aren't even mentioned in this article. It's like an article on Rudy Giuliani not mentioning 9/11. Brmull (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Finding someone's DNA in their own home is meaningless especially when none of it was found in the murder room or on the body of the victim. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that because here's a reliable source supporting you: "just the odd microscopic spatter of her DNA, which is hardly surprising given that she lived in the house." The same reliable source says Knox is a victim of "Italian sexism and anti-Americanism". And then there's this: "Not only does Amanda not fit the psychological profile of a killer in any respect, she doesn't fit the profile of a person capable of violence." You can put all that nonsense in the article and no one can touch a word of it, except by consensus. It's absurd. Brmull (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree that it should be removed. Content issues can be resolved here on the talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Look, I hate to be a pest, but if any article needs a pov/neutrality tag it is this one. Seeing as how sensitive it is, we need to be ultra careful not to say things without attribution. The very first paragraph states "and property belonging to her was stolen". Who says? Misplaced Pages? Nowhere in the article is that statement justified by source/s. The overwhelming feeling I have is that over time the article has developed like Topsy with many well intentioned people adding their 2C but creating an end result that looks like Misplaced Pages is saying things happened, not sources. Following is one single paragraph that I have copied from the article. The only amendments I have made to it is to add reference tags, and to point out a non reference.

"At 12:07 pm the next day, Knox called Kercher's UK mobile phone, ringing for 16 seconds. Knox testified that Kercher had always carried that phone since she expected calls about her mother's recent illness. One minute later, she called her flatmate, Filomena, telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, and blood in her bathroom. Knox called Kercher's second mobile phone and called the first phone again. The flatmate called Knox back three times. During the final call, which commenced at 12:34 pm, Knox said that the window in the flatmate's room was broken and that the room was a mess. At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to call the police. Sollecito then made two calls to the emergency number 112, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm. He reported a break-in, blood, a locked door and a missing person. Before the Carabinieri arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Post and Communications Police came to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones near another house. Knox and Sollecito were outside and told the police that they were waiting for the Carabinieri, that a window had been broken and that there were bloodstains in the bathroom."

Some of these points are so precise that they cry out for sourcing, as do other claims. For instance, where is the source for Amanda Knox testifying that Kercher had always carried a UK phone as she expected calls about her mother's illness? In fact, where in the article is there anything substantial about Knox's testimony full stop? We have a section headed "Knox and Sollecito trial and appeals". Within that we have a subsection called "Trial". It has only three short paragraphs, and absolutely nowhere among them is there any testimony from Amanda Knox saying what actually happened. Hard to believe. Moriori (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I read it Dempsey's book was the source for all that info. As to whether Dempsey's book should be a RS when previous editors concluded that her Seattle PI blog is not is another matter. One of ground rules for this contentious article should be that every sentence has a reference. Brmull (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There are not merely "content issues" here Berean. There are fundamental disagreements as to how the article should be organized, what is a reliable source, and how those sources can be used. This article should not only have a NPOV tag but a DISPUTED tag until these fundamental issues are addressed. Brmull (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless Meredith threw her own mobile phones away into someone's garden some time on the evening of Nov 1st 2007, they were stolen. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove I am troubled by the article; my sense is it has become a you-be-the-jury article that favors the defense. The forensic evidence section is especially troubling because it has merged the first and second trials; the material deprecates the first trial without the second being resolved. It repeatedly states the findings of the first trial and then an authoritative rejection in the second. The evidence was contested in the first trial, and the prosecution prevailed. The evidence is contested in the second trial, but we don't know which side will prevail (but it looks good for the defense). The section also confuses biological evidence with the broader forensic evidence. The article's prosecution argument leads off with a Satanic motive seemingly designed to discredit the prosecutor as one obsessed with unsustainable Satanic motives. The prosecution was not outrageous; as Time said, Knox put herself in front of the firing squad. She claimed a locked door was normal, but a flatmate contradicted her. She claimed she was not worried about Kercher, but she contradicted herself when she described her efforts to see if Kercher was alright. The staged crime scene is central to suspicion on K&S, but the staging is not all about where the glass fell; no valuable items were missing or even set aside in the left front bedroom. While such suspicious behavior by K&S should not be enough to convict, it shows the prosecution argument has more substance than a Satanic theory. I would remove the tag because it is not a warning to the reader, but I'm not happy with article. Glrx (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, many of which I made earlier. On behalf of both of us I'm going to make those changes and let's see what happens. P.S. I am not agreeing with removing the tag. Brmull (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I not only disagree with 90% of what Glrx said (including the odd reshapings of the events which seem to indicate a very strong personal POV), but I would like to remind Brmull that he has suggested a course of action which fits perfectly with the idea of an edit war. Correct procedure to boldly edit, revert, discuss per WP:BRD. However, I do agree with removing the tag.LedRush (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LedRush is correct. Per the agreement, none of the issues presented here are related to why the tag went up and the agreement of when it comes down. No moving of the goalposts, please.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with removing the tag, it should be noted that Brmull was not part of the agreement, the agreement didn't cover new items (inexplicably by demand), and that any editor can put up the tag if they discuss specific POV issues here, while something more than consensus is generally required to remove it.LedRush (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, Glrx, none of our suggestions are ever going to happen because they will be reverted and nitpicked to death by editors who a priori disagree with 90% of what we want to do. It's a huge disincentive to anybody investing substantial time improving this page. Yet you are willing to have the POV tag removed??? I don't understand it. (As an aside Glrx I have looked your previous comments and your POV on this case appears quite different from mine, so I suspect the reason we agree is that your changes just plain make sense.) Brmull (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's back up and focus on ACCURACY before addressing NPOV. There are a number of statements in this article that are just flat-out wrong. To begin with, the medical examiner found that the victim's hyoid bone was cut, not broken by strangulation and she died by both asphyxiation and blood loss. Can we agree to change that? Brmull (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources to back up the statements, and we don't spend too much space on it, of course.LedRush (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, I support removing the tag. I believe there is currently a consensus to do that, so I will remove it. (BereanHunter already did.)

Editors may add a new POV tag, but they must identify a specific POV problem; see the list generated in the agreement. When editing on that specific problem stops for a few days, then the POV tag should come down. That is the rule. The agreement relaxed that rule, and it did have some good effect.

I will not participate in any insert/revert compact. Material should be judged on its merits, and disputes should be resolved by consensus.

I disagree with the notion of heavily seeding cn tags throughout an article. There is some duty to find sources before adding the tag. The Massei report has a lot of material.

Nothing (except time and outside commitments) prevents you or me from editing this article.

Glrx (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he put an accuracy tag, not a POV tag, up.LedRush (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As I now see you've addressed below. Sorry.LedRush (talk) 17:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 factual dispute

A disputed tag was entered for the entire article.

Should the tag stay or be removed?

• Remove. The tag did not specify the particular problem, and the article has many source citations. Most of the statements are clearly supported. To the extent the tag is a substitute for a POV tag, it is inappropriate; those issues are separate. Glrx (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. The article is very well-referenced. If any facts are wrong, contributors should correct them in the usual way using citations for any corrections made. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Driveby tagging may be removed on sight (WP:DRIVEBY). Somebody tagging and then running off without addressing their concerns on the talk page doesn't amount to anything. Removed.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am all for removing it, but this is clearly not driveby tagging. He listed specific concerns, discussed them, and stated his intention to address them and tag the article.LedRush (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? After tagging, he should have started a separate thread here on this page that editors can easily find...not a posting under a different thread topic (somewhat obscure). Rather than discuss the tagging, I would prefer that he works to improve the article. That tag is related to bringing discussion to this talk page...but he hasn't initiated a discussion that requests/requires other editors input. Where would I respond or more clearly, where's the discussion? What is being requested?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He clearly indicated the issue in the only active thread. But whatever, this isn't my fight. If you want to ignore the spirit of the rules regarding procedure based on him not putting this in the right heading, go ahead.LedRush (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm following the spirit of the rules. Please read Template:Disputed#Usage to see how it is supposed to occur. Then look at this version of the tagged article making sure to click on the link which takes the new editor to the active discussion. Both versions of the article with this tag are screwed up aren't they? The tag would be nothing but confusion for editors as it doesn't take them to any such discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No, acting in good faith you'd not simply revert, you'd help him meet the guidelines to which you refer. He obviously brought up specific points, as he has for a few days now. I don't agree with a single one of his points, but that's neither here nor there.LedRush (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep;. In any case this is not a straw poll. If one editor believes in good faith the article is factually incorrect, the tag stays until that editor's concerns are resolved. The accuracy tag is not an alternative to a POV tag. I believe the article should have a POV tag as well, but I am willing to ignore that for now in the interests of having a discussion of factual errors. I am under no obligation to list all my issues at one time, but I will list three and how I am addressing them:

- "trial de novo" means "new trial". This is unsourced. The appeal is not a new trial therefore I am striking this term.

- "confused and nervous" referred to Sollecito's behavior in the hours after the murder, NOT on November 5. The Nathaniel Rich piece has so many glaring inaccuracies that I am disputing it as a reliable source for anything in the article. I will edit the text to clarify.

- The cause of death is in conflict with Dr. Lalli's report and I will fix it and find a reliable source, or the Massei report if necessary.

More to follow... Brmull (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This was much discussed before - it is definitely worth checking the talk page archives before making removals. The appeals are trial de novo (not sure why you think it is only English Common Law.... it's certainly far less used here than in some countries! Anyway; there was a source somewhere, anyone know where it has gone? --Errant 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well... On the one hand, this is perhaps more justified than the POV tag. On the other hand, it should not linger indefinitely. I echo much of what I said before in discussions regarding the NPOV dispute - to me, it seems that this general sense that the article needs to be tagged, and the debates that frequently arise from the repeated additions and removals of particular tags, are consuming too much valuable time and energy - time and energy that could be better spent proposing and making changes. SuperMarioMan 22:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• A few comments on the edits I just did: It is repeated several times in the article that the appeals started in December and are expected to go through the end of the year. Two times would probably be enough, don't you think? I also removed some detail about the thyroid artery and cut to the hyoid bone because it was improperly sourced and wasn't in my AP source. Massei seems to be the only source for that info if someone thinks it's important. Brmull (talk) 09:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Next three to work on:

-The phrase "widely described as controversial" is unsourced and needs to go. We're not supposed to say that in WP anyway.

-Book "returned before 10 am the next day" is single-sourced to Dempsey's book. The Michaeli report says "prima possibile" (as soon as possible). In my view, as with the Rolling Stone article, Depsey's book is not news, has numerous errors, and should only be used as a source as a last resort.

-"As Knox was initially only considered a witness, her interview was in Italian..." The fact that the interview was in Italian has no relation to her being a witness, nor does the source make such a claim. Furthermore, to say the interview was in Italian without saying a police interpreter was present is grossly misleading, which falls under the purview of an accuracy dispute. Brmull (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I tweaked the last point. Controversial could probably be sourced but I don't have time right now. Agree on Dempsey; it's a really poor book (nearly made my eyes bleed reading it) and RS's have questioned its veracity - so anything of any uncertainty needs other sourcing the back it up. --Errant 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Wales suggested using Murder in Italy and Angel Face as RS where ever possible. I see nothing wrong with that. Saying that Murder in Italy is poor is really showing your bias, it is by far the most well researched and thorough of the Knox books. Issymo (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The trial is controversial and continues to be so. This is self-evident from the huge amount of media coverage it has received and continues to receive. It was Jimbo Wales himself who wanted that added to the article, IIRC. It sounds like you want to roll the article back to the state it was in a year ago. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Jimbo Wales himself" has no more influence than anyone else, and right now I find myself disagreeing with him. A quick Google News search for "meredith kercher trial controversial -movie" (keyword movie removed so that all results returned would be about the trial and not about the movie) turned up zero results from reliable sources. At present I am unable to verify that this has been "widely described as controversial". If you could please provide a few reliable sources from things like newspapers describing the trial as controversial, I will add those as references for the statement. If no such sources can be provided and I can't find any myself (I'll keep looking), then I will remove the statement. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this phrasing needs to be sourced, if no sources identify the controversy we can't record it. Self-evident is not really enough for such a description. I am sure we had a source though. --Errant 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we went over this before and identified 5 or 6 sources which called this controversial. A simple google search confirms that dozens (if not hundreds) of RSs call the trial controversial, including some that I seem to remember being in our article. This seems like a waste of time to me. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=amanda+knox+controversial+trials&cp=33&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0n&aqi=q-n1&aql=&oq=%22Amanda+Knox%22+controversial+trial&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4b0b76f839a314b5&biw=1024&bih=531

BTW, Deskana, your search criteria are a pretty good argument about why Knox needs her own article.LedRush (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well, actually that Google search consists of unreliable sources that call the trial controversial. And some reliable sources, none of which actually appear to call the trial itself controversial (I only checked the first 10 or so pages). And no source at all that notes how wide a controversy it is. I am sure we had a meta source that discussed this? Did we not? --Errant 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. It is obvious the case is controversial by the volume of articles written about the controversy. Issymo (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Time article on the first page which I think we're already using in this article isn't good enough? Why would that be?LedRush (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A great many of those results returned are not reliable sources (and again quite a few refer to the movie, which leaves me wondering why you didn't remove that keyword like I did), but there is actually one on the first page that seems reliable. This one explicitly describes the trial as controversial, and it seems like a fairly reliable source. If we can find some more, then I can add them in. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have "movie" as a keyword, but I didn't bar it because many of the sources are covering the movie and calling the trial controversial.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had a clearer source than that... certainly that would support describing it as a controversial trial. But it does not make a comment on how widely it is considered so... did we not have a source that did that (searching the archives turns up nothing). --Errant 14:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion (and one below it) have about 15 sources for calling the case controversial. This has been gone over so many times I can't believe we still need this conversation. Though we don't need to per WP policy, should we just take 3-5 sources and jam them after the word controversy in the lede? It looks ugly, but it seems the only way to stop this silly argument from cropping up again.LedRush (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And another for the idea of it being "Highly controversial", though the other sources are more reliable.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It feels like we're revisiting discussions from several months ago here. Does anyone else agree with the unilateral removal of the description of the appeal as 'de novo'? 'De novo' seemed a good descriptions of the appeal trial to me since it is a retrial not a common-law style appeal. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is very, very bad dejavu. Almost satircal in nature. What controversy? Amazing we have to discuss this. Issymo (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that many sources use this term. Sources do seem to say that new evidence can be entered and it's different from an appeal as one would expect in the US. Regardless of whether we use the term, we need to explain, briefly, how this appeal is different than an appeal the reader may expect.LedRush (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So because one person doesn't like the shorthand term 'de novo' we now have to add an extra sentence to the article explaining how the trial is different from a US appeal? Is that what Misplaced Pages calls 'consensus'? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's back up a second. What sources either describe the trial as de novo or describe the trial in such a way that we can say it's de novo? I know they're out there, but do we have any? (BTW: I'm personally fine with the de novo language as it is. However, we must have RSs for statements, and I just don't remember if we actually got any, though I do know they're out there).LedRush (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's page on the Italian legal system says an appeal is a retrial at which new evidence and witnesses can be introduced. The editor who removed the 'de novo' phrase did it on the incorrect grounds that Knox's appeal is not a retrial. I know we can't use Wiki as a reference. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is one source that uses the term 'de novo' Issymo (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Uhm, that is a mirror of the wikipedia articel.TMCk (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But it's been trusted for over 100 years! How do I know? It told me so!LedRush (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Aye, that's funny.  :) Issymo (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 factual dispute (Part II)

Cont'd from July 2011 factual dipute...

• Regarding "widely considered to be controversial" - it doesn't matter if there are 15 sources calling the case controversial. I'm sure I can find articles calling the case straightforward. So unless someone comes up with a reference with those exact words then it's WP:WEASEL. There are many sources saying something along the lines of "the case has gotten a lot of media attention". We should say that instead.
• trial de novo (de no'vo): "a new trial or retrial held in a higher court in which the whole case is heard as if no trial had been held in a lower court." The rules of an Italian first appeal are that all the proceedings from previous trials are automatically admitted and the court decides what new evidence it will hear. In this case I believe there are six areas that the judges has agreed to re-litigate, one of them being the DNA on the knife and the bra clasp. Many other requests to re-examine evidence were declined. So this is not a "new trial". What is the argument for using a term that is unnecessary and imprecise? Brmull (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

But all of the evidence from the first trial is reevaluated in the appeal. It isn't just accepted. That's why it's a retrial. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here are three new issues:

-->" was convicted on all counts on 28 October 2008"... No, there was only one count, "murder aggravated by sexual assault".

-->"Guede was tried for murder, sexual assault and the theft"... Not in source. He was just tried for murder aggravated by sexual assault.

-->"in which he said that Knox was not at the flat at the time of the murder"... Not in source. Guede never said Knox was not at the flat. He just didn't mention her at all. Brmull (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. In Rudy's statement of Nov 21st 2007, he specifically says Amanda was not at the flat. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From that statement, Guede said Knox was not there at the time Meredith searched her room. Regardless, the statement I'm constesting says "BEFORE his arrest". Nov 21st was AFTER he was arrested in Germany.

Secondly, this is a discussion about the accuracy of specific statements. In the case of MK returning the book by 10 am, we have two references (Dempsey and Micheli). Dempsey is the ONLY source for 10 am, and Micheli says something completely different ("as soon as possible"). My argument is that this detail is not important enough that we should try to figure out who is right. We should just remove it. Brmull (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding whether the case is controversial, we have sources to back up the claim and nothing that contradicts it. This is simple and until someone gets sources that contradict it, this discussion is pointless.

Regarding Knox not being at the flat, we have sources that confirm this. These are non-issues.

Generally, if we want to dispute current sources, let's try and got others that contradict them and then let us analyze which source is more reliable. This method of pot shots is not productive.LedRush (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, according to this source, Guede was tried for murder, sexual assault and theft (and acquitted of the latter) . "Last October, Guede was tried and convicted of murder and sexual assault, but acquitted of theft in a separate, fast-track trial."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the 'factual accuracy' tag should be removed since it seems the editor who put it there is tilting at windmills, to some extent. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Brmull (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll accept that Guede was tried and acquitted. The Italian sources are confusing, and Vogt is generally a very good source. Brmull (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If he was acquitted, why is he in jail? And why do all the RSs say otherwise?LedRush (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Acquitted of theft silly! Brmull (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Guede's Skype chat--we have the audio (Il Stampa), we have a transcription, and we have an English translation. Nowhere does Guede say Knox was not there. I don't know where The Telegraph got that info, but it's obviously incorrect. If you just think about it--Guede said in the chat he was in the bathroom when he heard the screams, so how would he know that Amanda was not there?

Regarding whether the case is "widely considered to be controversial"--I continue to request that it be removed as WEASEL. My second choice is to add to the list of supposed controversial elements such things as the defamation judgement and the petitioning of the U.S. and Italian governments. Plus a sourced statement that there has been widespread support for the Kercher family.

I'll add one new issue for now, since I've got to go back and deal with old stuff:

-->"the court explained it reduced Guede's sentence by 14 years because he was the only one of the three defendants to apologise"... This is unsourced and untrue. The court reduced Guede's sentence because he was allowed the same mitigating factors granted to Knox and Sollecito, reducing his sentence to 24 years, from which he got the standard 1/3rd removed for accepting a fast-track trial. Brmull (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The reduction in sentence is not automatic for the crime of murder under the fast track procedure. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? My understanding is that the court is not obligated to accept a request for fast-track trial, but once accepted the 1/3 reduction is automatic. Brmull (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that the 1/3 reduction was automatic as well. I also thought that Guede had his sentence reduced because he apologized, though he didn't really apologize for the crimes of which he was convicted.LedRush (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought we already talked about Sollecito's behaviour on 5 November. The Newsweek source directly contradicts Rich's Neverending Nightmare, as do a ton of other sources, e.g. ABC News. He was "confused and nervous" on 2 November. We have to go with the version that's better sourced. Brmull (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please show me in the sources you provided where they direction contradict the Rolling Stone story and where they explicitly say that he was "confused and nervous" on Nov. 5?LedRush (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article says Sollecito was 'confused and nervous' on the night of Nov 5th and so does the ABC news article cited. I don't understand what this argument is about. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

-->I have some concerns about this paragraph:

After nearly six months of hearings, the trial was shut down early for summer, when Judge Massei ordered the prosecution to release to the defence previously withheld biological evidence. On 14 September 2009, the defence requested that the murder indictments of Knox and Sollecito be thrown out due to the length of time that the prosecution had withheld evidence. Judge Massei rejected the defence’s request.

I can't find a RS for "shut down early". Nor for Massei "ordered the prosecution to release". Nor for "withheld biological evidence" (it was 300 pages of documents). As for "Massei rejected" it was the the jury's decision, Massei just announced it. The cited sources do not back up any of these claims. Brmull (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

-->Knox was convicted on "all charges except theft" - There is confusion among sources due to the fact that they were convicted and sentenced for theft of the mobile phones, but not for stealing the money and credit cards. This is per the Massei report. Brmull (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I commend the focused disputes on particular facts. However, I think those disputes are more appropriately addressed by adding {{dubious}} tags to the challenged facts rather than hanging a dull {{disputed}} tag on the whole article. If a section has serious factual problems, then a {{disputed-section}} tag could be used. Glrx (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We are going section-by-section. If editors prefer that I put tags on each section that has serious factual problems I will be happy to do so. But right now we are talking about the lede anyway. As for the dubious tag, that would be appropriate if and when we take a look at things that are dubious. Brmull (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My second attempt to resolve the "widely described as controversial" dispute seems to have failed. What is the formula for determining if a case element meets that definition, so I may check for factual accuracy? Is the prosecution "widely described as controversial", or merely one prosecutor? Are the victim and her family controversial? What is the formula for determining which is elements are NOT "widely described as controversial"? Why shouldn't non-controversial elements be listed for clarity? Brmull (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know, the description of "widely described as controversial" is already a compromise. The article should just say that the case is controversial as fact. We have 15 RSs which back this up. However, as appeasement for one or two people who don't think the case is controversial, we gave it the attribution...more specific ones don't makes sense when so many sources call it controversial. If you'd like to avoid the weasel words, let's just follow what the RSs say and call it controversial.LedRush (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Aside: I want to stay focused on the factual dispute for now, but "According to Knox's father..." is a huge WP:UNDUE violation. Furthermore the editing history of this article has been to avoid the rabbit hole of he-said/she-said by non-participants. Brmull (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this went in because people wanted to attribute this opinion, rather than just say other sources, generally reliable but not as solid, said about it. I could try and find a better cite. But I gotta say, your track record on disputing the information is so bad, I'm not excited about having to spend a huge amount of time finding more sources when the sources we currently have already do the job and these issues were already discussed in the past. Do you think you could do some more diligence on your claims before deleting them or questioning them here? Perhaps could you actually cite to a reliable source which backs your claim when you make the claim here? That could save a lot of time and duplicated efforts.LedRush (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is Brmull, you claim sources back up your claims but they don't. The ABC news article you cited above does not refer to Sollecito being confused and nervous on Nov 2nd. It's referring to the night of Amanda's interrogation when she implicated Lumumba, Nov 5th. I've reverted your edit accordingly. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Edits

Organized knox appeal area, added recentism tag, and correct misspelling of defence. User:Mokaiba11 —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC).

Final spelling and grammar checks, cross-referenced with UK english spellchecker. User:Mokaiba11

I know that you meant well but please be careful. You altered the titles of publications as well as urls to match ENGVAR and we don't do that. Titles & urls should remain as they are regardless of which variation of english they may be.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Appeals Section Changes

The recent changes to the appeals seem to make the article much more difficult to understand. By putting everything in strict chronological order, it makes it very difficult to follow the progress of the appeals. Furthermore, one edit is a badly worded quotation which seems to me to be the only thing that really smacks of too much recentism. Otherwise, the reporting on the trial seems to coincide with the importance of the events, not the time in which they happened. I'd revert all the edits made, though I don't know if that is an automatic breaking of the 3RR or if it would be considered one refert.LedRush (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be a single revert, and agree with your comments. Although it does help highlight the level of detail in the section - a blow-by-blow account is something for a blog or advocacy site, not for something that purports to be an encyclopedia article. Ravensfire (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the months and left the years, if you dont like the years just remove the years but dont revert as you would revert the order and spelling corrections. ">(User talk:Mokaiba11 —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

The issue is that your reorganization makes the section a mess and difficult to understand. And your spelling corrections weren't very correct.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This section will continue to evolve. I have no particular position other than it should be accessible to people who are looking for a summary of the appeals process as well as the latest details. Brmull (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing I do have a strong position on is that quote by Curt Knox: WP:UNDUE. Inflammatory. Conjecture. Gotta go. Nadeau has an account of what the independent experts actually said. While they complained about the delays getting certain information (delays Stefoni's letter suggested arose from confusion about what they wanted), it is not clear that this was the reason for the 40 day extension. In any event this delay had almost no impact on the trial, compared to delays caused by the personal issues of the attorneys and judges. It is WP:UNDUE. Brmull (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting that your preferred sources appear to be Barbie Nadeau and Andrea Vogt. I personally find them to be rather unreliable and they both have a very particular slant on the case, i.e. they are certain Knox and Sollecito are guilty. Not exactly a mainstream view any more, I venture to say. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've come around to the view that you have to take every article on its own merits and evaluate it against the other reports. But reporters who were actually in the courtroom are a good place to start. Brmull (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox ?

Not yet notable for her own? Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

{Bracing for the storm}LedRush (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Soon.. very soon.. looks like the couple will be acquitted.. considering the key evidence all just went to.. how do Brits say it?.. Shite? Then there'll be no more excuses as to why Amanda Knox doesn't rate her own page.. and those that have WP:dragged their feet for years, and thrown up every WP:roadblock they can dream up, will have no choice but to allow the whole truth about this whole ugly case to be told.. warts and all.. The sad fact is they and Wiki in general have contributed to smearing a couple innocent kids and stealing 4 years of their life..(and you know who you are..) Don't know how you can look in a mirror.. don't know how you sleep at night.. but can't wait to help with the rewrite.(otherwise, just checkin in so you know I'm no sockpuppet)18:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC) tjholme

July 2011 factual dispute (Part III)

Cont'd from July 2011 factual dispute Part II...

• Okay I may have screwed up on the date that Sollecito was "confused and nervous", but it was an honest mistake since multiple articles based on AP reported, "Police officer Daniele Moscatelli told a court in Perugia, central Italy, that Raffaele Sollecito looked "quite confused and nervous" during the questioning in the hours that followed the murder."
• Rather than "widely described as controversial" as a compromise why not just say "described as controversial". That, unlikely "widely described", is substantiated by the sources. To say "the case is controversial" would be akin to saying "knox is beautiful" rather than "knox has been described as beautiful". Inappropriate.
• I'll ask again how the four "controversial" elements were selected. First of all, the cites should be thrown out except for Vogt which can be used as a cite for three of the four claims. As to what can be included in the questioned list how about "Italian justice system" based on this article? I can find many others. Brmull (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't currently see a need for a wholesale rejigging of the article, particularly when you want to make edits which on examination aren't supported by the sources you cite. I see no need to remove references from the article because you think one reference will do. It seems a bit late in the day to be rewriting things to minimise any suggestion of controversy. We had a very lengthy debate on that subject a few months back, and the current phrase is a compromise. It's hard to muster the energy to go through it all again. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd not include the Time and Guardian sources, or one of the leading books on this subject. We had other sources but pared it down so as not to clutter the lede with sources. The aspects were chosen because they are pretty obvious and supported by RSs. Regarding the "widely described as controversial" statement, as I've already explained that was the compromise position. If that is unacceptable, I would just state it as a fact seeing as even the most hardcore "guilters" accepted that the case was hugely controversial in the link to the previous discussion above.LedRush (talk) 13:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Described as controversial" is fact. "Widely described as controversial" is opinion. It's as simple as that. The way the aspects were chosen was arbitrary. I want to add more to the list that I think are "pretty obvious" and supported by RS's. As for the existing sources, the first one is a dead link. And you're telling me an interview with the sister of one of the editors active on this site is a RS for the lede? Come on. Brmull (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With your definitions of fact and opinion, we'd have to say that "Obama is described as African American" and "the sky has been described as blue". The aspects are not arbitrary, and perhaps you should assume good faith here. As for the sources, why don't you sift through all the other sources we discussed as well, or through the dozens of others out there and choose the ones you like. Regardless, the language is so uncontroversial that choosing your own sources should be easy. Not that we need to as we've done this all before.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Eating yellow snow has been described as a bad idea. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between "widely described as controversial" and the examples you gave is that the examples you gave are WP:FRINGE, whereas there are a lot of people on both sides who see the case as open and shut. Brmull (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of any cases where RSs describe the trial as uncontroversial or not controversial? I know of several that call Obama of mixed parents or mixed race, and many that mention the sky is technically not blue.LedRush (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my case. The current wording doesn't past muster with me, because of the subjective adverb "widely" as well as the arbitrary list of things that are supposedly questionable. But to label the case as a whole controversial because some RS casually opine that the case is controversial is not right. It needs to be neutral language and precise for an encyclopedia.

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, coverage in the news media and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor.

This works:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, and aspects of the case are controversial.

We can go round and round, or we can shift to a different approach and maybe get this settled. Brmull (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no issue. Your proposals are contradicted by long discussions here and the sources. No one has identified a problem with the current language.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And the aspects of the case are not chosen arbitrarily. These aspects are highly publicized and we have many sources discussing issues with those aspect of the case. If you think there are other aspects of the case which should be on the list in addition to those, and find sources which support your opinion, then we might have something to discuss.LedRush (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The current wording in the lead ("widely described as controversial, with questions raised...") doesn't belong where it is. There's a lot one could say in the lead to describe the trial; singling out English-language criticisms from the defense side brings up obvious undue weight problems. Better to not bring up such things in the lead. Townlake (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, the criticisms are not from the defense side, but from the media. The media reporting has been largely in the US, UK and Italy, and all three currently have been highly criticial of aspects of the trial. Seeing as we spend a large amount of the article talking about these aspects, and seeing as the case is notable because of the controversy, there is no where this can be other than the lede.LedRush (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dempsey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference times-confesses was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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