Jump to content

Talk:Amanda Knox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.171.160.182 (talk) at 18:48, 18 October 2011 (Undid revision 456226152 by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) Stop removing my edits with no justification. ADIMNS PLEASE INVESTIGATE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article recreated

The result of the deletion review was vacate, resulting in full protection being dropped to semi. As an uninvolved editor my main concern was to see a neutral biographical article for this verifiably notable subject, but that doesn't mean I necessarily want to create one myself. To that end I've recreated a minimal stub and would suggest this be developed without reference to the old version and with minimal reference to the murder of Meredith Kercher (so as to avoid creating a POV fork). I'd also suggest being careful to use only the most reliable of sources so as to avoid wasting editors' time discussing and cleaning up (as this article has been a time sink in the past) and in particular to avoid potentially libelous statements per WP:BLP. -- samj inout 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested outline for article

  • Lede
  • Early Life, education, etc. (this is standard for just about any biography)
  • Murder of Meredith Kercher. This would be a summarized version of the events surrounding the murder.
  • Muder trial and appeal. A brief summary of the main case (perhaps merged with the events surrounding murder).
  • Other related cases. This should expand upon the cases in the MoMK article, allowing those to contract.
  • Portrayal in Media. A survey of how the media has portrayed Knox in the Press. (this would focus on portrayals of Knox, not about the case. The MoMK article would talk about the portrayal of the case, not the individuals.
  • Public reaction to Knox. The disparate and differing opinions/camps regarding Knox.
  • Portrayal in Popular Culture. This could also include references to the biographies, books, TV shows, and films about Knox.
  • Life in prison. Similar to the Mendoza brothers. There have been tons of article about this, though I'd imagine this section would be very brief
  • Life after acquittal; (TBD)

Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for getting a start on this. Looks good except that I'd be wary of content forks of the MoMK and (proposed) trials articles. Obviously the related cases would need to be covered here but the actual murder and trial she was acquitted of should have no more than a paragraph each, if that, with {{mainarticle}} links. -- samj inout 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of her early life is of interest per BLP & privacy, just so you know. Might be best to shift most of the content to a "trial of" article to avoid most of the BLP issues & avoid the risk of a fork. I don't like the portrayal sections either - again undue issues extant, and I am not sure if we have any good scholarly sources that summarise the material (i.e. rather than it consisting of "X paper said...", which is bad). If you keep it short and sweet though it sounds ok. I'd not mention anything about "events surrounding the murder" or the trial other than a brief timeline.
i.e.:
  • Lead
  • Murder of Meredith Kercher
  • Related Cases (though as related cases, all the same thing)
  • Public Image (covers all the portayal)
  • Appeal & Release
Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 16:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not a BLP violation to have an early life/education section commensurate with other articles on living individuals (meaning it must be brief without mention of playing in flowers). Also, the main trial must be summarized briefly with a redirect to it. No more than a short paragraph. Finally, there is much media attention and information about Knox's life in jail, including a book of interviews with her there that doesn't cover the subject of the murder. Again, this information should be dealt as with in other BLPs. Ditto post jail life, though that section may be little more than a comment on her very public press conference.LedRush (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added some basic uncontroversial facts to get things rolling. Hope you don't mind. Dougbremner (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life as a student and later prisoner in Perugia, Italy

I added this section and some basic facts which need citations. Dougbremner (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acquitted?

I'm no law expert but is a judgement being overturned on appeal the same as an acquittal? (Re 'acquittal' in the lead.) --regentspark (comment) 23:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to say under Italian law. The first appeal is much more like a trial de novo in common law countries. However, I suspect that you're right and the current language is misleading. It should say that she was convicted and then found innocent upon appeal (innocent...not not guilty).LedRush (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already changed it to the more accurate description of "her conviction was overturned".TMCk (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Italian law is completely different than US law, which is based on common law which derives originally from old England. In Italian law conviction is not attained until the second trial, therefore the accused are innocent until then. They are referred to as "imputato" which means accused. Therefore Knox was never convicted and found guilty. Italians understand this readily. Unfortunately they often have to rot (or sweat) in jail in the meantime. They are being held for "cassation" I think the term is. The first trial is primo grado which is best translated as "first grade" while the second is "secondo grado". Calling it an appeal is misleading as it seems like American appeals although confusingly enough the secondo grado is held in the Corte di Apello. The secondo grado is like a trial di nuovo where evidence and witnesses can be brought back in. The "supreme court" or Cassazione (Cassation) only considers violations of form or interpretation in camera, i.e. Mignini will have to write a brief and they will read it and consider it and if they find with him they will send it back to the lower courts for a trial di nuovo although the chances of this happening are very unlikely. I might add that the main injustice in Italian law is the slow process and lack of due process, and the large number of people exactly like Knox who spend years in jail although they are never technically "convicted" (as Knox was not). Italians are very cognizant of this and this is what is behind calls for judicial reform. Dougbremner (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Though you might be right, we still need RS's that say so.TMCk (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Italian Code of Criminal Procedure here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an english language encyclopedia — use the precise terms in italian (where they will be understood) and the best available equivalents here. -- samj inout 14:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is not accurate and the points of Italian law are relevant. She did not spend 4 years of a 26 year sentence in jail because she was never found guilty. She spent four years in cautionary detention, during which time she lost the first grade trial (primo grado) and won the second grade trial (secondo grado). In fact she was always referred to as "accused". The second grade trial conviction is required for guilt to be established. 99.110.189.111 (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I think that a more detailed explanation including the Italian terms would be very informative in a subsection. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added, btw the above about italian law was from me, and I have added a new section. Dougbremner (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judge quote in lead

I don't think this is appropriate. First of all, the judge said this in a conversation with the media and is not something that was said in the courtroom. Second, the judge goes on to say "But this is the truth in court, not the real truth. And that could be different". Signifying that, in this judge's mind anyway, the distinction is a legal one. And, this is just one judge from amongst a large panel (presiding or not). Either way, unofficial statements made to the media are hardly the stuff that should go in the lead. --regentspark (comment) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's undue in the lead, certainly. Could be good content in a larger section. --Errant (chat!) 18:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Somewhere in the article body is reasonable. --regentspark (comment) 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it's a media quote probably better in the MOMK (or trial) article; on balance it seems a bit soapboxy, and we have better material to say the same. --Errant (chat!) 18:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I choose to agree with the Errant of an hour ago, and not the current Errant.LedRush (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its being given undue weight in the lede. Its doubtful if it should be added here at all. - It needs expanding and explaining and then it would be very undue in this biography - remove it completely from here is my position - I removed it - please don't start this here, this is a simple life story not a guilty innocent soapbox - take it to the trial article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it would be better in a subsection. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be in a subsection, and other quotes from the original trial judge and Italian and American officials would improve the article. Westeros1994 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it three times if you like but it won't make it any more correct. This is not a fork of the trial article content. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no personal attacks. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please avoid that. I recommend as a new editor you take your time editing this BLP as it is highly contentious. It may be a good idea to restrict this article to a IRR condition. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, mocking me and falsely accusing me of trying to create a "fork of the trial article content" is a personal attack. WP:NPA: "Rather than commenting on what is wrong with the article or talk page, they make a bad comment about the user, the person who wrote the comment. This is called a personal attack, and will not be tolerated. Personal attacks help no one." Westeros1994 (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood me, your undue portrayal of attacks is unwarranted and a personal attack in itself - I suggest you drop it and focus on content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording was clear and it is your false accusation of a personal attack that is unwarranted. Westeros1994 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you repeat your false allegations of personal attacks they will still be false and attacking in themselves. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off2rob, you were being a douche (unneccessarily antagonistic), please stop. Westeros, being a douche is different than a personal attack...stop whining and move on. Let the WQA's against me start....:)LedRush (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me a douche is a personal attack, if you repeat it I will report it. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone chill out. Westeros, per my comment on your talk page, this is not a personal attack and calling it one is inflammatory wikilawyering — same applies for talking about content forks. Comment on the content, not the contributor. -- samj inout 12:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be turned into a content fork of the trial content. Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're preaching to the converted. -- samj inout 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the quote should be in the lead. I don't think that the quote should be in the article at all as stated above, it was a quote to the media and not a statement in court. What I do think should be in the article is the distinction that the court made in their judicial code which is contrary to the statement that Hellmann made to the media. Their are two points about the judgement that are significant. One, that he released them immediately rather then hours later, secondly, the judicial code that they used: 533 instead of 530. 530 means that there was not enough evidence to convict, however 533 means that "the fact does not exist". No matter what the judge said to the media (it was probably just saving face) he had a choice and chose to use the code that stated no that there was not enough evidence but that they did not commit the crime.Turningpointe (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Errant, Off2riorob and others in the view that the quotation should not be presented in the lead section - hardly encyclopaedic. To me, its out-of-context positioning (as a one-sentence paragraph) almost has the effect of sensationalising the content of the introduction. It may be appropriate to include the statement in a relevant section of the article's main body. SuperMarioMan 21:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run the quote won't be seen as significant. I think he was basically saying that from the viewpoint of the law there was not evidence to convict, in fact not evidence at all (not just reasonable doubt), but in terms of "what really happened who knows" (i.e. possibly martians could have done it). It was a quote pulled out of context by the media. 99.110.189.111 (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC) Dougbremner (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"But this is the truth in court, not the real truth" implies that the finding of innocence is wrong — e.g. they were guilty. There are plenty of people who vehemently believe they were guilty and plenty who believe they were innocent — are we going to quote them all? Granted this was one of the judges but I'm unconvinced this (possibly slanderous) statement has any place in the article, anywhere. -- samj inout 08:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what was exactly meant, the main issue to me is that it was a quote given outside of court, to the media. At least as written it sounded like a legal opinion or ruling (i.e. what he said when releasing them). Which is a neutrality issue too. All in all; a dubious choice of quote. --Errant (chat!) 11:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 14 October 2011

Please change Seattle, Canada to Seattle, USA. As Seattle is in the USA. See Citation 8

Yadernuk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada has been removed. Off2riorob (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial and imprisonment

I added a reference for the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (see here) to address questions related to the writing being original research. Dougbremner (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no... actually that doesn't address the concerns much - although OR is not the major problem, it feels rather synthy, especially as (suspiciously) none of the Knox related sources mention the criminal code. I think the information is poorly presented; and once again soapboxing about the issue. A simple description (that didn't mention the criminal code every sentence :P) is the way to go. --Errant (chat!) 10:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as the prose leaps from moving to Italy to "She was put in prison" with little context or description (even if it is self-evident). Not good. --Errant (chat!) 10:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I tried an improvement. --Errant (chat!) 11:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The English was off in this, I corrected it and added a reference from the Seattle PI article about not being guilty until convicted in the secondo grado at the Corte Assize d'Appelo (I think technically Vogt is wrong about this, you are convicted after secondo grado because it usually does not go to the Corte di Cassazione unless someone wants to complain about technical problem or application of the law, when it is heard in camera, and if the court decides it is thrown back to appeals court for retrial, but no matter). Dougbremner (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need a negative in there somewhere, because now she *is* guilty after the first grade (according to us :)). --Errant (chat!) 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doug seems to be ignoring this; I am confused on whether there should be a negative in the prose - but it is my understanding she was *not* considered guilty after the first conviction (although that appears to have been stretched out from the legal defn. it is what the source says). As it hasn't been corrected I tried to do so --Errant (chat!) 09:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all the sales links and the not notable uncited tv programs - this is Knox's life story as written by us using reliable externals - its not a place to list links to promotional sales sites for every titillating paperback anyone has ever written neither every uncited tv program about the murder. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knox has been written about a lot. The list of books were only the ones published by independent publishers, and only the ones primarily about Knox (not primarily about Kercher). This section was labelled a stub...the only way for it not to be one is to add the books and shows I've added. If those aren't good enough, we shouldn't even have the section. Of course, that wouldn't conform to either the consensus of editors on this page or the purpose of Wikipedia. If you have a problem with a specific source, I suggest you discuss it here.LedRush (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you reverted back the amazon sales links with the edit summary , "(revert removal of sourced, notable content)" - I dispute your reason for re adding the disputed content when I clearly didn't remove a single WP:RS - notable content requires independent reliable citations that are discussing it to assert its notability, that does not include sales sites .. and you also replaced all the uncited content as well. Oh, well lets see what others say. In fact your whole addition here is a simple cut and copy paste duplication of the content from Murder of Meredith_Kercher#Further reading - begging the additional question - does any of it belong here anyway - its all about the murder not the person or if they're all about the person then they don't belong at the murder article. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The books etc. are about the trial - so probably more logical/better there. --Errant (chat!) 20:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(also; if copying content within Wikipedia please remember to cite this in an edit summary for attribution and to meet licensing) --Errant (chat!) 20:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the books about the trial and left the ones about Knox, as stated above. The list is not a copy from KoMK, though there is about a 70% overlap.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you cut and copy pasted everything that you posted here from the murder article didn't you - you didn't write it yourself did you? Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote some parts of the MoMK section (which I copied), and I wrote some new parts for this. If you want to tag something for licensing, go ahead. I'm not sure what the to-do is about.LedRush (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts did you write as brand new content and which parts did you cut and copy paste from another location of the content you added here? Did you write this (uncited) content new today for this article Amanda Knox#Television Documentaries or did you cut and copy paste it from another article - ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The documentaries list I helped compile on the MoMK article, and copied a scaled down version here. It was the consensus of the editors at the other article (I believe) that citations for these types of lists were not necessary. I am agnostic on the issue don't care either way.LedRush (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest if you are agnostic about something you should avoid revert warring them back into a BLP when they are uncited. Please remove them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not agnostic about the inclusion of the information, merely the cites. Also, could you please be more polite? You constantly act like a petulant child looking to start fights at the drop of a hat.LedRush (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you either cite it or remove it. - its independently uncitable - just remove it and get it over with. Also - "You constantly act like a petulant child looking to start fights at the drop of a hat" - I suggest you stop looking in the mirror if you don't like what you see. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Firstly, please settle down with your unnecessary aggression and hostility. Secondly, it is cited, so it obviously isn't uncitable.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing out your earlier inflammatory and hostile language.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly again - if you don;t like what you see in the mirror adjust your own behavior, secondly, as per firstly. - As per your opining about why I did something, I am well known for editing my comments please do not assume why I did it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assume a reason. Please reread what I said and be more careful with your statements.LedRush (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to look at the books themselves but I don't see why we should include links to Amazon.com in the article. This is an encyclopedia, and links should be either to cited text from a reliable source or to external material that contains material that is useful. Linking to a book that is for sale is appropriate for a catalog, not an encyclopedia. --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon links are used in place of ISBN numbers where appropriate. They serve as a citation that the book meets the criteria for inclusion (meaning, not self-published).LedRush (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to bring this discussion to the MoMK page, where Errant participated in the discussions resulting in the inclusion of these links in the past?LedRush (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about Knox. Listing the books, documentaries and films about here seems like a no-brainer to me. Of course, we could expand the "media portrayal" idea and explain how each book/film/documentary portrays her, but that seems like overkill to me. A simple list converys to the reader the level of coverage the subject has received, informs the readers of the type of coverage she has received (one main purpose of the article) and is generally helpful to the reader to know the subject (another main purpose of the article).LedRush (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your cut and copy pasting and duplicating of content from the murder article, some of which was uncited seems not to support your comments - basically imo all the content written about her is about the murder and as your cut and copy duplication shows, is already where it belongs, already at the murder article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Why is the level of coverage important? The purpose of the article is not to reinforce the fame of an individual. And, how does a list of books inform the reader of the type of coverage? One would have to write a summary of each book for demonstrating the type of coverage. A list of books seems rather arbitrary to me and, as far as I can see, is there only to emphasize that the person is famous. --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliographies seem generally helpful for the reasons I stated above, and seem to be not at all uncommon for articles of this type. The books help the reader know about the type of coverage by what the book purports to cover (whether conversations with her in jail, or even just something like "Amanda Knox and the others" conveys clear meaning to a reader). Also, the list doesn't need to emphasize that the person is famous, but it does help a reader understand the nature and scope of the subject's coverage in books/film. Seeing as even getting an article for Knox was an uphill battle based on notability, it seems even more important here than on the many, many other articles that have them.LedRush (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have several of the remaining boooks; and they are all specifically about the murder/trial. Not about Knox. I'm dubious on the TV shows as well TBH, but that's for the next section. --Errant (chat!) 09:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of documentaries

Off2Rob has remained a class act and removed the entire section a mere two hours after tagging it as uncited and without letting anyone else chime in. So the question because, if I chase down the cites, do you agree that the section belongs? If people will be mindlessly obstructionist, it may not be worth the time.LedRush (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself - if they are noteworthy and independent perhaps, perhaps not. Whatever - don't replace uncited content into a BLP again. - especially with the false edit summary you posted earlier of, "(revert removal of sourced, notable content)" - Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um...so you want me to go through each and make the case for how noteworthy each is independently? And even if they are, you still might not support inclusion? Does anyone with something intelligent or intellectually honest to say have any thoughts on whether to include a fully cited list of documentaries about Knox?LedRush (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you removed much cited content. Please try and be honest about that. However, I admit you are right that I restored some uncited content per my understanding of the rules regarding bibliographies based on when editors and admin (like Errant) allowed for such entries not to have citations in a bibliography. I am still not sure what the correct policy is, even though I know the correct way of getting at the truth is not the way you've chosen.LedRush (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You claim I removed - "much cited content" - was this independently cited content - or some sales externals that are now removed and not to be returned - and a couple of isbn internals that are not really cited content at all, but simply book references. - please present this so called much cited content that I removed...Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
isbn internals? what does that mean? isbn numbers should not be removed although THEORETICALLY I guess you could argue that amazon links are promotional sales although in the 21st century to deny that an amazon link is a major place holder as a unique identifier for a book is really antiquated thinking in my opinion, although, hey, that is just one opinion. I will be watching this site and any arguments that books, movies, etc, about Knox are not relevant to be listed on this page I will vigorously dispute. Dougbremner (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The books were correctly cited for WP policy on including books. But you already knew this as it was stated above.LedRush (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No they were not or I would not have had to remove all the sales externals would I. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're going to change your story yet again. Awesome. So now you are no longer arguing that each and every book that was listed did not have any cite at all, but that each and every one was incorrectly cited, and that you removed them all so that you could fix them? So strange.LedRush (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To recap, you said that I made a revert with a "false" edit summary - implying I lied, not made a mistake. The edit summary said that I restored cited content. Of course, we both now seem to recognize that at least a substantial part of the information was cited. However, you seem to have taken the position that none of it was correctly cited, so that's why you had to delete it. This seems equally implausible to me, but logical consistency and constructive discussions remains elusive with you.LedRush (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)LedRush (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the list of documentaries. These do not need reliable source citations. Dougbremner (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, why not? At this moment they are totally unsourced; so there is no evidence for their existence. I'm not exactly questioning that they did happen but here are a few problems: "A Long Way From Home" doesn't mention Knox in the title, how do we know it was about her? How do we know the rest were broadcast? From which sources has this list been constructed. That is what is needed. --Errant (chat!) 09:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them again as uncited. - they are worthless without verification. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Errant, is there a policy reason that cites would be needed here but not on MoMK? I've asked the question over there as well...I simply don't know the correct policy on this, but I believed that the cites weren't necessary for the bibliography because it was merely a bibliography. That we had 3 admins commenting on the article, and sometimes even on the content of the bibliography, at the time strenthened that belief. If we always need cites to a bibliography, that's fine. They should be easy enough to get. If I do get them, would you support their inclusion here?LedRush (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, what happens in MoMK, stays in MoMK. (just a little joke) although unless things are so common as to be usual practice what has happened on one article if against policy and guidelines is not a reason to do it at another articles - its a matter of, if challenged as well. Also this is a WP:BLP and as requested by that policy, we should cite things to quality sources. One benefit of this, apart from the obvious benefits to the reader is of verification and investigation - citing them will allow us to investigate them and to see what they are about etc. I Personally see no benefit to them being duplicated here - they are all about the murder. Saying that if cited I won't remove them and a consensus may arise that they are worthwhile here - imo we could create a list of news pro grammes about the murder there are probably so many. I have added sources to a few of them at Doug's talkpage here. - User talk:Dougbremner#List of Documentaries on Amanda Knox - Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they need to be cited there as well. Bear in mind that the books are cited as existing, because their ISBN is provided & so we can look up & verify them. We need the same situation for the TV stuff as well, obviously. --Errant (chat!) 16:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Discussion on Tightly Restricting or Deleting This Article: Creation of this Article is Long Overdue

Wikipedia policy states, in essence-- That Wikipedia should not be dominated by aggressive, opinionated game playing. It should be a neutral, public use encyclopedia. A little piece of the true spirit of Wikipedia has been restored by the creation of this article. Admins, please watch over this article, it will need your extra attention.

Often discussed efforts to delay, or prevent, or tightly restrict the content of this article do not have merit. These discussions have been ongoing here, and on the "Murder of Meredith Kerchner" Wikipedia article talk page. Such editorial intentions are now, and have always been, contrary to the mission of Wikipedia.

69.171.160.182 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release

Can someone please fix this section somehow? In its present state it reads like a soap opera (or the ending of a Bollywood film)--regentspark (comment) 14:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific (or less insulting)?LedRush (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't mean to be insulting so apologies if it came off that way. Do we have to use 'most urgent letters' and the comparison with the pope? And, the bit about the cheering inmates does, with due apologies but I can't find any other way to describe it, seem a bit soppy. I'm not even sure why all this is here, all this would be better in a celebratory piece about the person but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Anyway, I've said my piece and perhaps I am wrong so let's see what others say. --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The cheering and headline are newsworthy in my opinion. Personally I think it is OK. Dougbremner (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is all cited, and I remember the stories from the day. I think much information here will feel a little undue-y until we beef up the article as a whole. There is a ton of information which can be included in this article, but I just need to find the time to put it in. But I'll take a look at the section and see if it should be toned down.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the content itself. I think the best way to address this is through article expansion. Is there an edit you think would addrss your concerns, or do you just think the whole thing should be removed?LedRush (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted criminal

This article seems to ignore the fact that Knox was convicted for trying to frame an innocent man. Her 3 year sentence for that crime was upheld at the appeal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.25.145 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knox was convicted of falsely accusing someone else of the murder, a fact which sits very prominently in the current lede.LedRush (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Here's an editorial:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amanda_Knox&oldid=456227511"