Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

My remaining limited role here

I am still willing to work with any editor who wants assistance in wording one or more neutral Requests for Comments. Before I failed the moderated discussion, I had said that one or more RFCs were probably the only way to resolve the issues about this article. I still think that RFCs are the only likely way to resolve this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert - Would my suggestion in the section above be suitable as the wording of a RFC? The suggestion is essentially that the findings of the respective courts should be presented under their own headings accompanied by reference to the respective judgements. This is a way of representing the different findings of the two courts in a consistent and neutral format rather than only referring to the earlier judgement in the opening paragraph and stating the findings of that court to be a fact. --St.Barbra (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there should be a separate heading for each trial? If so, that does sound like a reasonable neutral RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes - that would be a logical place to put the findings of the respective courts together with reference to the judgements. There is in fact already a separate heading for each trial lower down in the article. It would just be a case of moving the final sentence of the first paragraph into the relevant section headed "Trial of Xolile Mngeni". This would remove the confusion caused by referring to one judgement only in the opening paragraph, when a subsequent judgement made a different finding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by St.Barbra (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that no court has ever ruled the Anni's death was not a murder for hire. That is a very uncomfortable fact for Shrien Dewani supporters, but a fact, nonetheless. So the article should not suggest otherwise.Lane99 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

No, User:Lane99. We aren't pursuing that agenda, of using Wikipedia to retry Shrien Dewani because of the lack of particular magic words in the very clear ruling in S v Dewani. The court didn't explicitly reverse the finding that it was a murder for hire. The court did explicitly rule that there was not a triable case against Shrien Dewani. Either drop that argument (that it was a murder for hire) utterly and forever, or identify a suspect as to who arranged the murder who has not been acquitted, or I really will go to Arbitration Enforcement for extreme BLP violations. Those are your choices. Either the court forgot to use the proper magic words to dispense with "murder for hire", but it isn't a murder for hire, or identify an alternate suspect based on a reliable source in accordance with the policy on biographies of living persons, or .... Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've no agenda other than the facts of the Murder of Anni Dewani. And resent your implication, otherwise. Your above comments indicate you don't understand what the Dewani judgment says. Have you read it?Lane99 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

user:Lane99 For someone who has debated this issue across numerous forums, you seem to have a very weak grasp on the facts. Not only does the Judgement clear Dewani of any involvement, it also makes it clear that the "murder for hire" story was made up. It didn't make sense. The three lying criminals contradicted each other on each and every material aspect of the alleged "plot", and perhaps more significantly than anything else, there was clear evidence that no agreement ever existed between Tongo and Dewani. Tongo "forgot" to ensure that the "agreed" money was in the glovebox and Dewani "forgot" to bring the "agreed" R15000 with him in the car! The two dangerous, armed gunmen who were to carry out this hijacking and alleged murder were unknown to both Dewani and Tongo, so if one believes the "murder for hire" story then one needs to believe that both Tongo and Dewani were happy to embark on this operation without the key component - the money - being in place for the two thugs who were going to hijack them. It makes no sense now and it made no sense when the story was told in court. Which is why the Judge did not even require the defence to stand up. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Lane99. When a court ruled that the only evidence of "murder for hire" came from the mouths of 3 self serving liars (who were caught fabricating evidence numerous times whilst testifying), that story ceased to have any credibility. Which is why the trial was halted without even requiring Dewani to mount a defence. This may be very inconvenient for the argument you are trying to make, but it is fact. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure that user Robert McClenon had posted a response to my comment above (at 07:21) here earlier in the day which has now disappeared. Robert, are you able to confirm that this is correct, and that you have since removed it? I would sincerely hope that no other editor has removed your comment without your permission? The comment was with regards to clarifying my remarks above and whether I was suggesting removal of the final sentence of the lead paragraph. In any event, my answer to that question is yes (but on the proviso that the information is recategorised into more logical places) as explained in my comment in the "grossly misleading test in lead paragraph" section above at 21:29 today. --St.Barbra (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence that any comment that I made has been removed. I do see that you made a comment at 7:21, at which point I could not possibly have posted anything because I was asleep. I think that all of my comments are still standing? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies Robert. My mistake. The comment I thought had disappeared was in the section above (01:28 "Grossly misleading lead" section). Slight confusion due to same topic being discussed in two different sections. Thanks for prompt response, and continued efforts to resolve the situation --St.Barbra (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If I can also adjudicate on the controversial issue being debated above as to whether either of the courts did or did not find that Anni's death was a murder for hire:- The court in S V Mngeni found that Mngeni was responsible for the death of Anni in a murder for hire plot. However, that determination was proven to be false later on in the Dewani trial, which somewhat diminishes the previous ruling. The court in S V Dewani found that there was no credible evidence whatsoever in which the court could convict Shrien Dewani in respect of the same alleged murder for hire plot. The accusation was tested and rejected. It is therefore erroneous to conclude anything other than the court completely rejected then murder for hire plot. All that is then left is a bungled robbery with the protagonists perjuring themselves in an attempt to implicate the accused. --St.Barbra (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for Draft RFCs

If anyone has any suggestions for draft RFCs, please list them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Panorama

Is anyone suggesting that there should be an RFC that either the 2013 Panorama documentary or both the 2012 and 2013 Panorama documentaries should be omitted? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if we are going in circles here. But, yes, I am. On the basis that 2013 Panorama is biased and unreliable. And I'm prepared to demonstrate that.Lane99 (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Please go ahead and demonstrate it rather than just offering to do so. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a Criticism section about the 2013 Panorama documentary. Does anyone think that there should be an RFC that the section be either dropped or expanded? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Panorama appears to me to be the main area of contention in this Article (aside from the lead paragraph which appears close to resolution). There appear to be 3 alternative approaches to Panorama, being advocated by various parties: i). Delete all reference to Panorama from the Article, ii) Keep current Panorama main section, but delete the "Panorama Disagreement" section as its current content is false and misquotes the very source that it cites or iii) Keep the current Panorama main section and consider the addition of a "Panorama controversy" heading with content that is agreed to be fair, factual and representative.

A good starting point for the RFC wording might be for Lane99/afd to simply draft exactly what they propose be included in the "Panorama controversy" paragraph including full substantiation for the "bias" claim and their draft text can then be assessed and discussed accordingly here on the Talk page or as part of Robert McClenon's RFC. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a reasonable suggestion, and I encourage it. However, I will discourage putting the "bias" claim into the first sentence of the RFC, because that will make the RFC non-neutral. (There is a common tendency among intermediate editors to word an RFC in a biased way to get a particular result. However, what sometimes then happens is that the closer declines to close it (and on occasion even says that it doesn't count).) So let me write the final wording of any RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In response to the options above:- (i) appears grossly inappropriate for such a valuable investigative source which examined the topic and has been watched by millions. (ii) I think was my suggestion and so obviously my preference. (iii) Agree would be another consideration, and still possibly neutral. But may I suggest a number (iv) - including comments re "controversy" or "disagreement" but within the same Panorama section. Just report the objections raised in a factual way, correctly representing any article referred to, under the same heading. That way it's balanced and all kept together rather than the fairly minor objections being over-emphasised with their own heading. --St.Barbra (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

What are (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), other than Roman numerals? Which question were they in response to? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe they refer to the three roman numeral points in my earlier comment regarding options for dealing with Panorama in the Article. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I certainly think removing all reference to Panorama would be a mistake. As I said previously, they both represent milestones in how public perception of the murder was informed. The SA media by and large seemed convinced of the ultimately discredited "hired killing" idea, while in the UK media was ambivalent at best. The 2012 Panorama programme was the first to highlight the discrepancies in the police/prosecution case to a wide audience, and the 2013 follow-up built and expanded on that. As previously mentioned, Panorama has had a long history of dealing with actual or potential miscarriages of justice, so this case as a "natural" for them. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Panorama paragraph should stay. Panorama was an important step towards uncovering the truth about the lack of credible evidence to support the "murder for hire" theory. To this day it remains the only video based media investigation that tested the veracity of the "murder for hire" theory and it is largely for this reason that the pro guilt fringe groups do not like its prominence in the Wikipedia article. It is also precisely because of this that the pro-guilt fringe dedicated significant resources and a dedicated webpage to try to discredit the documentary; it was and is extremely damaging to their "lynch Shrien Dewani at all costs" agenda and that largely explains why Panorama's credibility is being challenged and indeed why we are having this discussion..... Dewanifacts (talk) 11:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Any discussions on what should stay on the article page are welcome here as long as they are civil and productive. I will not take part except to comment on how to formulate an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

user:Lane99 Are you planning to make good on your offer to demonstrate what was biased in Panorama 2013? Dewanifacts (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The RFC discussion appears to have dwindled to nothing? The "Panorama Disagreement section" further up this Talk page has no opposition voiced to proposed changes. Whilst editors have suggested that they will make a case to show why Panorama was biased no case has been forthcoming on this Talk page and no proposed revised text (other than the ones suggested in the "Panorama Disagreement section") have been put forward. In light of this, may I suggest that the edits proposed in the "Panorama Disagreement section" are now cleared to be made to the Article? Dewanifacts (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverting lede paragraph

I have reverted the recent edit by user User:Lane99 who made no attempt to gain consensus prior to making the changes. Notwithstanding my personal view that the changes actually diminish the neutrality of the introductory paragraph it is the principle of making autonomous edits at this stage against advice of senior editors which prompted the undo. I am not looking to get involved in edit warring. Can we instead debate why the changes were necessary / preferable, prior to proceeding, as I understand is the required process for this page? --St.Barbra (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Likewise I have reverted the same text after Lane99 re-added the same misleading information for the 7th time in the space of a few weeks. There surely needs to be a limit to this circular sequence of events? Like St Barbra I am not wanting to get involved in an edit war. Perhaps Robert McClenon can advise? Dewanifacts (talk) 06:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged correctly because the space in my user name was omitted. However, I checked this talk page anyway. My advice at this point would be that controversial edits, especially to the lede, should be discussed on this talk page, either via regular talk page discussion or by Requests for Comments, a binding process that I tried to start but that seems to be going nowhere. I see that two editors were blocked for edit-warring the lede and are coming off block. Unfortunately, previous efforts at content resolution have failed, partly because, in my opinion, we have conduct issues, at a minimum tendentious editing, and also persistent biographies of living persons violations. Complaints about tendentious or other disruptive editing can be taken to WP:ANI. User:Lane99 has already been notified of ArbCom discretionary sanctions concerning statements about living persons. (Anni Dewani is not a living person, but two of the defendants and one acquitted defendant are living persons.) Arbitration Enforcement is available to apply discretionary sanctions if the introduction of BLP-violating material into the lede resumes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Sadly I see no other future ending to this situation than some sort of sanction for both or one of these users. We can not keep protecting an article for years to come simply because two users are unwilling to compromise (and yes mostly Lane99).--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ There is absolutely no justification or need for me to be banned or sanctioned due to the actions of another editor. I have, in my first month as a Wikipedia editor, quickly become acquainted with Wikipedia policy. I respect and adhere to Wikipedia policy. I will not be contravening any Wiki policies, I will not be making any contentious edits and I most certainly will not become involved in any type of edit warring. The only edits I make will be those that have been discussed and upon which consensus has been reached. If another editor's Wikipedia behaviour shows a disdain for productive discussion and that editor's views are diametrically opposed to reality and to the prevailing consensus, then the issue lies with that editor, not with me. If another editor chooses to engage in behaviour that falls foul of guidelines or is contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, then please address the issue with that editor. Please do not drag me into it as though I am somehow responsible for another editor's actions. Please judge my actions on their own merits. Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve neutrality of the Article

Yesterday Collect made some very significant points regarding the way this Article reads. He made these points in discussion on the WP:BLP [Noticeboard]. Essentially Collect's point is that the current tone of some sections of the Article is very prejudicial to the reputation of Shrien Dewani, one of the victims of this crime. I agree with Collect that as an innocent person, Shrien Dewani should not be the focus of this Article, nor should a disproportionate percentage of the article be dedicated to examining and analysing evidence against him. Shrien Dewani was exonerated and the article's substance and tone should reflect that, not merely its wording.

Collect suggested numerous changes to wording to improve the neutrality of the Article's tone. I'd encourage Collect to suggest those changes on this Talk page so they can be discussed and the edits made once consensus is reached.

Whilst the case against Shrien Dewani was pending (for almost four years) it may have been appropriate to include Article sections on the Investigation, involvment of Max Clifford and detailing the drawn out Extradition process, however those sections are basically irrelevant now and only serve to further the libelous suggestion that Dewani was in some way involved in the commission of the crime. I would suggest that the same applies to the sections detailing "Shrien Dewani's version of events" and "Zola Tongo's version of events". I was the person who added these sections but with hindsight I realise that Wikipedia is not the place to be "retrying" and analysing the versions of people who have all had their day in court.

I would suggest that the "Investigation" section should remain, however its content should be limited to detailing the arrests and confession sequence of the three convicted perpetrators (Mngeni, Qwabe, Tongo), the arrest and Section 204 plea deal struck with Mbolombo and possibly some reference to the unknown fifth conspirator, to whom the Court alluded and whose existence was strongly supported by telephonic evidence (taped call between Tongo and Mbolombo including the the statement by Mbolombo that "there's five of us").

In my view, the "Trial of Shrien Dewani" section should remain for the reasons that i) it was central to the high profile nature of the case, and ii) its exclusion from the Article would leave half the story untold and not provide adequate explanation for how and why the "murder for hire" theory was ultimately discredited. In effect, I think that excluding details of Dewani's trial would actually be a WP:BLP violation by omission. iii) The court's conclusions in the Dewani matter were central to unravelling the chain of lies that had resulted in other miscarriages of justice; for example the perjury by Mbolombo and Qwabe in the trial of Mngeni, which saw Mngeni incorrectly convicted as the triggerman. Not detailing key facts such as these, would leave this Article as a rather useless information source for anyone interested in knowing the basics about this case.

What are other peoples' views on all this? Dewanifacts (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The person was improperly charged - and thus the article should deal minimally with the person who should not have been charged. Simple. Collect (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I'm seconding most of your proposed deletions. Dewanifacts (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all information regarding the person who was aquitted should be removed. If this topic is only notable because of that, then we may have to just face the fact that this might not be notable overall. But I agree completely with Collect's edits that you reverted. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but do not wholly agree. The main reason I disagree is because this article is not solely concerned with the tragic unlawful taking of Anni Dewani's life; like any other Wikipedia crime article it is also outlines the legal consequences and the judicial response to that crime. Shrien Dewani's trial cast a bright light on how the case had been mishandled by the SA Police and the National Prosecuting Authority. It shone a light on the fact that Mngeni had been incorrectly found to be the shooter, based on flawed ballistics and perjured evidence. It highlighted the fact that the real criminals ended up benefiting from the lies they told, and also bought to the fore inherent flaws in the UK/SA extradition process. If we excise mention of Dewani's trial, then it becomes unwieldy to insert this information into other parts of the article. The convictions and plea deals of the actual criminals were all tainted by the fabricated "murder for hire" story and in my opinion the most concise and non-confusing way of conveying this pertinent information is to have a section that deals with the trial of Shrien Dewani and outlines the reasons for his trial being halted and the contract killing theory being discredited.

I would be interested in the thoughts of others familiar with the case. Nick Cooper, Wodnala, St.Barbra, Gerrytlloyd? Dewanifacts (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello.

Could someone please remove the person-related categories:

• People murdered in South Africa
• Swedish murder victims
• Swedish people murdered abroad
• Kidnapped Swiss people

This is an article about a crime, not about a person. Since she was not notable, there is no article about her. I have instead added the relevant categories to the redirect with her name (Anni Dewani), so the article can be found through the category system anyway. (And btw, she was Swedish, not Swiss.)

Also, the category "2010 in Sweden" needs to be added.

Thanks. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No opposition, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

UK Coroner rules out inquest

BBC News: BBC News: Anni Dewani: Coroner rules out full UK inquest

North London Andrew Walker has ruled out a full inquest on Anni Dewani, stating there is not sufficient cause to hold one. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems like both @Dewanifacts: and @Lane99: have left us for some reason. I thought they would have taken this time to make some kind of agreement on how to get along and move forward with editing this article. But I hope it will solve itself when the protection ends. Anyway, good info will be interesting to follow any new evidence in this trial saga.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ. At your suggestion, I took a wiki break. I am happy to continue helping to discuss and edit this article so that is informative, factual and neutral. I did invite some comment in the "Suggestions to improve neutrality of the Article" section above, but not much has been forthcoming in the past few weeks. Maybe I was not the only one taking a wiki break! Regarding the trial saga, you can expect that not too much more useful information will come to light unless and until the SA authorities do their jobs properly. This would entail prosecuting Mbolombo and ensuring that the plea deals of Qwabe and Tongo are revisited due to the overwhelming evidence that they made up the "murder for hire" story to incriminate an innocent man. Like Mbolombo, they too should be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice and they should be re-sentenced for the armed robbery/kidnapping that resulted in murder. Under SA guidelines this would put them behind bars for a minimum of 25 years. Faced with the threat of a genuine prosecution, these three criminals might finally decide to come clean and tell the truth about the operation that resulted in the murder of Anni Dewani. Of course this would mean exposing the incompetence and malpractice of the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority, which is precisely why it is unlikely that these authorities will have the stomach to prosecute Mbolombo and find true justice for the victims and their families. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Lede Section: Should Murder for Hire be excluded as discredited?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lede paragraph of the lead section currently refers to a theory that the murder was a murder for hire designed to appear to be a random carjacking. Should that statement be excluded on the grounds that it gives undue weight to a theory that has since been at least partially discredited, since the primary suspect was formally acquitted on grounds of inadequate evidence to continue with trial?

Cast your !votes for Include to include the murder for hire theory, or Exclude to exclude the murder for hire theory, or otherwise explain your !votes so that they can be !counted. Do not comment in the Survey. Save your comments for Threaded Discussion.

Survey

Threaded Discussion

I will vote for "exclude" but that is mainly because I don't like the wording of the RFC. I think it requires a 3rd option - "include with qualification". Given the "murder for hire" theory was largely what gave this case a high profile, it does warrant mention in the lede, however it needs to be explicitly and unequivocally qualified by explaining that the theory was discredited.

My suggested wording is below:

"South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that she had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. That theory was later discredited when Dewani was exonerated, the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations.[1]"

Dewanifacts (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment One should ALWAYS comment in the survey. The purpose of a straw poll or RFC is to promote consensus, not to simply conduct a democratic vote. Remember that !voting is quite different from voting. Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

user:Lane99 has now re-added this misleading lede text (and subject of this RFC) to the Article page for the 5th time, rather than discussing sensibly on this Talk page. I have reversed the edit and do not want to get into an edit war, but it seems like this editor is deliberately trying to push in that direction. How can we resolve before that stage? Dewanifacts (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that user:Lane99 has attempted to disguise the addition of the misleading information by cloaking it in other information. The inclusion of the reference to the 3 South African men being convicted on the basis of a "murder for hire" plot would in theory be alright, however it needs to reflect reality by simultaneously informing a reader that the "murder for hire" story was proven to be a pack of lies and that each one of those 3 South African men were found to have perjured themselves in one or more trials pertaining to those very convictions. The "magic words" argument being utilised by this editor is very transparent and this is simply another attempt to re-plant a pro-guilt Trojan horse. Dewanifacts (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

OMG are you two still at it? Time to move on perhaps. Just a suggestion. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Lane99 seems determined to keep insinuating that SD is still guilty, I doubt this is going to end any time soon.... Nick Cooper (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Considering that it is the second time in a small amount of time that the article has had to be protected because of the ongoing bickering.. perhaps it is time for the editors involved to disengage from the article and argument for some time.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

user:BabbaQ, I think user:Robert McClenon has already laid out a very sensible plan that aligns with how Wikipedia operates. That process asks that we discuss additions on the Talk page and once consensus is reached (or no opposition expressed) then edits made to the article. The issue we are having is due to editors with a "pro-guilt" agenda attempting to insert such inferences into the article despite those amendments contravening BLP rules and being expressly opposed by numerous other editors including senior Wikipedia editors. You will notice that the "pro-guilt" editors do not even contribute to this RFC..... Dewanifacts (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you should all relax. And start discussing this in a productive and better tone. Or else you both risk being blocked, and the article will be fully protected over and over again. Just saying. And the edit warring definitely needs to stop. I am not pointing you out Dewnifacts because I think you are keeping it pretty clean overall. But it is easy to fall into the cycle of edit warring. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This question has been addressed repeatedly throughout this talk page. It is a proven fact that the murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. This has been affirmed in multiple courts. Despite spurious claims to the contrary throughout this talk page, no court has even proven, ruled, or adjudicated that the murder was not a contract killing.

All attempts to remove references to the killing being being a murder for hire should be rejected as they are attempts at rigging the system by removing perhaps the most salient fact about the topic of the article.Lane99 (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Genuine question to User:Lane99 - For the avoidance of doubt are you able to reassure the rest of us that you know the difference between a "fact" and a "finding of a court"? I think you are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding in this regard which is leading you to keep on repeating the same thing again and again. I suspect you do know the difference but in the interests of stating the obvious... A "finding of the court" is a determination which can either stand the test of time, or it can be proven wrong at a later date. Whereas a fact (or a "proven" fact as you like to say) cannot be overturned. It is factual that the court made a finding, but the finding itself is not necessarily a fact. To remain neutral Wikipedia needs to report the various courts findings. Nothing more, nothing less. Example:-

"The court found in S V Mngeni that Mngeni shot Anni Dewani as part of a pre-arranged murder for hire"(CORRECT)

"It is a proven fact that the murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire" (INCORRECT)

Not wanting to be patronising but do you understand this? --St.Barbra (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

"Murder for hire" is the most salient lie told about the subject of this article. A lie that has been proven to be a work of fiction told by three criminals who lied, lied and lied until their entire story came crashing down. In a weird inversion of rational sane logic, pro-guilt editors are attempting to imply that the tragic death of this young lady should be assumed to be "murder for hire" unless explicitly stated otherwise. user:Robert McClenon has patiently and valiantly explained the fallacy of this "magic words" argument. Despite this, it is apparent that editors with a pro-guilt agenda intend to flout the Wikipedia process, ignore the wiki BLP guidelines and re-add the "murder for hire" fallacy to the lede as soon as it comes out of protected status in a week's time. Can I suggest that the article (or at least the lede) remain protected from editing unless and until editors with a pro-guilt agenda agree not to make amendments until consensus is reached on this Talk page? Dewanifacts (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Summoned here by a bot. The murder for hire version of events, while it might have been discredited, is certainly part of the history and narrative of this case. As such, I think it should be included in the article's introduction. However, this needs to be heavily qualified by a statement about Shrien Dewani being found not guilty and the murder for hire account thus being discredited. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• • What is your basis for suggesting the the murder for hire has been discredited and is merely a part of history, Cordless Larry? Because the court record begs to differ. For it's a proven fact (and reported as such in multiple court rulings) that Anni Hindocha's murder was indeed a contract killing. And certainly it's patently false (as others has claimed) that the Dewani judgement ruled that it was *not* a murder for hire. In fact, not only did the Dewani judgement not adjudicate whether the murder was, or was not, a contract killing, the ruling explicitly RENOUNCES making any specific finding on that question. So the fact of the matter is that no court, anywhere, has ever concluded Anni Hindocha's murder was anything other than a murder for hire that was staged to look like a random carjacking.Lane99 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I was taking Shrien Dewani's acquittal as evidence that the murder for hire account had been dismissed, but if that isn't the case, then the argument for mentioning it in the introduction is strengthened. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, Cordless Larry. And I agree.Lane99 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I draw your attention to the comments made by St Barbra above. A court's finding can either stand the test of time in whcih case it is a fact, or it can be overturned or proven to be wrong, in which case it ceases to resemble fact. The courts in Tongo and Qwabe's plea hearings and Mngeni's trial all recorded convictions on the basis that the untested "murder for hire" story was factual. Dewani's 2014 trial proved that the story was actually made up and thus it is erroneous to continue to refer to the the previous courts' findings as "proven facts" as Lane99 likes to do. Dewanifacts (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Shrien Dewani's acquittal judgement provided unequivocal inarguable proof that the "murder for hire" story had been made up by the criminals. Dewani wasn't merely acquitted due to the evidence falling short of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof. The trial was halted before Dewani even had to mount a defence because the court found NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that he had anything to do with the crime, and a mountain of evidence proving that the entire "murder for hire" story was made up to incriminate him. Dewanifacts (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you cite which paragraph of the Dewani judgement RENOUNCES making a finding on the "contract killing" story? Dewanifacts (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone of you know were this discussion is heading? What is the point of the discussion at its current form? To prove that you are right, or to find a solution to your issues? It seems that none of you are willing to make any sacrifice to come to an agreement that would satisfy both. I am telling you both, keep the discussion to the talk page, no arguing at the articles summary after an edit. Both of you are at risk of being blocked if your discussions disrupts the article again, and I do not think anyone of you really wants that. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ. Yes it is clear where the discussion is heading. If you read the comments and understand the nuances of this case then you will notice that myself, Nick Cooper, St Barbra and Cordless Larry have all indicated that a solid compromise would be to include mention of the "murder for hire" theory in the lede, but for it to be strongly qualified to make it clear that the theory was discredited by the findings of the court in S v Dewani (2014). The sticking point is that some editors refuse to admit that the "murder for hire" theory was discredited and are insisting that it should be stated as a fact that Anni's murder was a contract killing. This is clearly at odds with the reality and would also be to breach Wiki:BLP guidelines as it would be inferring and ascribing guilt to a living person who has been exonerated of all involvement in the crime. Given those circumstances, I cannot see how any further compromise can be reached? Dewanifacts (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If anyone doubts that the "murder for hire" story was unequivocally discredited by the judgement in S v Dewani (2014), I would invite them to read the judgement starting from paragraph 23.1.45 where the analysis of cross examination of the key witnesses begins. It is a very transparent plain English summary of how the "murder for hire" theory was thoroughly discredited during the course of the trial and shown to be a fabrication designed to falsely implicate the victim - Shrien Dewani. Here are a few key paragraphs:

23.1.45 During cross-examination a slightly different picture emerged from the evidence of Mr. Tongo. Mr. Tongo’s evidence was riddled with contradictions. Some of these contradictions relate merely to peripheral issues and I will not deal with them in any great detail. However, others are far more fundamental. His evidence and the version of the events which he gave are also highly improbable.

23.1.51 Mr. Tongo was adamant throughout his evidence that what actually persuaded him to get involved in the commission of this crime, was the promise by the accused that he would make his business grow – rather than the R5 000,00 remuneration which he would receive.

23.1.52 In his affidavit however no mention whatsoever is made of the so-called promise by the accused to refer clients to him and to grow his business. When one considers that this was the main motivating factor why Mr. Tongo, who had never previously been involved in criminal activities, was prepared to get involved, it is indeed strange that he did not mention it in his statement. For this discrepancy Mr. Tongo blames Lieutenant Colonel Barkhuizen who took his statement.

23.1.54 Both in his plea explanation and in his affidavit, he stated that the accused had asked him if he knew of a place where he could exchange dollars for rands and where he did not have to produce his passport. This money was according to Mr. Tongo earmarked to pay the killers. In cross-examination it transpired that the accused never indicated that he did not want to produce his passport. His passport was, in fact, never mentioned. Mr. Tongo stated that that was just something that he (Mr. Tongo) thought. Mr. Tongo attributes the allegation in his affidavit in which he claimed that the accused did not want to produce his passport to a “mistake”. This is a serious mistake – because if in fact the accused deliberately wanted to act in a manner to hide the fact that he changed the money to pay the killers – it would certainly call for an explanation from the accused. It is a further indication of how Mr. Tongo was prepared to lie in a way which creates an atmosphere of suspicion regarding the accused.

23.1.60 This evidence is indicative of how Mr. Tongo could change his version under pressure of cross-examination without the slightest hesitation.

23.1.69 At 11:52:19 Mr. Tongo texted the accused and at 11:53 the accused replied in a text saying, “Okay, give me 10 minutes”. The CCTV footage shows that the accused had changed from his pool clothes into trousers and a golf shirt. There is no record whatsoever of any telephone call made by the accused to Mr. Tongo on that Saturday morning. The CCTV footage belies the fact that the accused was in a hurry and desperate to go to the money changer. In fact, it seems apparent that the accused was late for the appointment and still had to go to his room to change to go to the money changer. Mr. Mopp conceded that Mr. Tongo exaggerated the haste with which the accused wanted the transaction done but states that this is not a deliberate falsehood, but understandable in view of the time that has lapsed since the incident. I do not agree. This evidence was clearly tendered with a view to create the impression that the accused was extremely anxious to have the money changed with which he was due to pay the killers.

23.1.70 Mr. Tongo further testified that upon their return from the money changer, at the Cape Grace Hotel, he and the accused discussed how the job should be done. The accused said that he wanted the car hijacked, then they must be robbed, whereafter the hijackers must first drop Mr. Tongo and then himself whereafter they must kill the woman. The further details of the evening were also discussed. Mr. Tongo confirmed in cross-examination that this discussion took place after their arrival from the money changer whilst they were sitting in the parked car. However, he was then shown CCTV footage of them arriving from the money changer. The car had hardly stopped when the accused alighted and walked towards the hotel. On the CCTV footage one then sees the car leaving. It was therefore clearly a figment of Mr. Tongo’s imagination that the discussion took place in the parking lot of the hotel. Once Mr. Tongo was caught out, he again changed tack with apparent ease and stated that the conversation actually took place in the motor vehicle while they were driving, once again he called this discrepancy a “mistake”.

23.1.79 Importantly, Mr. Tongo testified that when the hijack did not take place at the place and time initially agreed upon, he received a text message from the accused enquiring from him what is happening. When it was however pointed out to him that there was no such sms message on record, which was common cause between the parties, he stated that the records are wrong. This is yet a further untruth told by Mr. Tongo in an attempt to incriminate the accused.

23.1.80 Mr. Tongo also claimed that there was telephonic communication between him and the accused while they were underway from Gugulethu to the Strand. Once again he was confronted with the documentary evidence that there was no such communication indicated on the documentation. Once again Mr. Tongo stated that there might be a problem with the records although they were agreed upon between the State and the defence.

23.1.95 It appears far more probable that Mr. Tongo did not reveal this because if he had revealed to the police that he had received R1 000,00 from the accused, it would have flown in the face of his entire story.

23.1.102 From the aforegoing it is clear that Mr. Tongo contradicted his affidavit made to Lieutenant Colonel Barkhuizen in virtually every material respect. His evidence is also inherently contradictory. In some instances it makes no sense, and in others, his explanations are laughable.

23.1.103 His evidence is contradicted on material points by his accomplices, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mbolombo. But, apart from the contradictions, the entire story as told by Mr. Tongo is highly improbable.

24.1.17 During cross-examination it soon appeared that Mr. Qwabe was a self-confessed liar.

24.1.27 Mr. Qwabe’s evidence as to how this incident took place, and how Mr. Mngeni shot the deceased, can, with reference to the objective facts, simply not be correct.

24.1.29 Mr. Qwabe’s evidence, of course, contradicted the evidence of both Mr. Mbolombo and Mr. Tongo as far as their discussions on the Friday evening. I have dealt with these aspects, and I am not going to repeat them.

24.3.33 Before Mr. Mbolombo proceeded with his evidence, he delivered a pre-prepared speech which, from the record, appears to be virtually identical to a similarly emotive speech which he gave the court in the Mngeni trial, before blatantly lying about material aspects. Those aspects had nothing to do with hiding his involvement in the matter.

24.3.34 Be that as it may, Mr. Mbolombo’s evidence unravelled during cross-examination. He started to contradict himself on each and every material aspect of his earlier evidence.

24.3.38 In addition to this, there are stark contradictions between the evidence of Mr. Mbolombo, Mr. Tongo and Mr. Qwabe on material aspects of their evidence.

24.4 To summarise, Mr. Tongo, who was the only witness who could link the accused to this conspiracy, gave evidence to the court which is so improbable and contains so many mistakes, lies and inconsistencies that one simply cannot know where the lies end and the truth begins. I accept that at this stage of the proceedings the credibility of a witness plays a limited role. But, in my view, the evidence of these witnesses is so replete with fundamental contradictions on the key components of the State case that I can all but ignore it. In making this finding, I take into account that all three witnesses, Mr. Tongo, Mr. Mbolombo and Mr. Qwabe are intelligent people, and therefore more than capable of attempting to twist their version to implicate the accused. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP Noticeboard

Hi, I am a volunteer at the BLP Noticeboard and this article recently was reported. I will review the article and attempt to address any concerns. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources fully support the current article content. The sources also adequately represent both viewpoints about the accused and leave it to the reader to formulate which is true. The article is exceptionally well written and sourced, and balanced, though it rambles a bit. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 02:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You are not a BLP volunteer, and the noticeboard here concluded that the "murder for hire" theory doesn't belong in this article. -Darouet (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Collect, Meatsgains, George Ho, and Nonsenseferret: Am I right about this? It seems like you're arguing the murder for hire theory should be removed. However, this appears to occupy a substantial portion of the article. Collect, you here removed a lot of material, all subsequently re-added to the article. I'm going to remove it again, assuming that's appropriate in this case. -Darouet (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the "murder for hire theory" should be removed. Most of the article covers this theory and IMO should be drastically condensed. Meatsgains (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that most of the "murder for hire theory" should have been removed. However, in my opinion, while there had been too much content about the trial of Shrien Dewani, there is now too little content, because the statement is made correctly in the lede that Shrien Dewani was acquitted, but any statement made in the lede should be included in the body (just not at such length). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

If a person has been absolutely exonerated, any mention of the accusation is harmful to that person, except to make sure the exoneration is clear. The extended content, alas, is not making the exoneration clear, and thus ought to be deleted. It is rather like covering the "Protocols" in detail, and then in a single sentence saying "they have been proven false", here we improperly have an "acquittal" in the lead, and the claim that he was accused - but that is, IMO, improper and insufficient given the end results. 12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)Collect (talk)

We seem to have reached a strange place on this issue. The idea of a murder for hire is what drove the original police investigation and prosecutions, so those have to be framed in that context. The same applies to Shrien Dewani's extradition and trial, but obviously we have to give sufficient weight to the rejection of that theory in the latter. It does mean that technically Tongo and Qwabi are in prison for offences that were not quite what they were convicted of, but it seems unlikely that they could appeal for any rmeaningful eduction of sentence on that basis. A murder commited during a robbery is still murder, and Tongo was clearly an accomplice to the robbery, if nothing else. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We are indeed at a very strange place. The Article, due to the wholesale edits made without consensus by Collect and Darouet, is no longer a useful information source on this crime or the judicial response to the crime. The Article does not inform the reader as to the circumstances surrounding Anni Dewani's death, nor the deception and lies told by the criminals to win the lenient sentences that they now enjoy. Dewanifacts (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Discuss edits on Talk page before enacting them in the Article

This article was locked 4-5 weeks ago and remained locked for a full month, due to the fact that edits were being made without consensus, and in some instances constituted outright defiance of consensus.

Due to the controversial nature of the subject matter of this article, all editors were implored to discuss edits on this Talk page before enacting them, and to only enact them once consensus had been reached.

Collect - in mid September you deleted large swathes of the article without consulting or gaining consensus. Those changes were reversed and we all agreed to discuss them before enacting. A section on this Talk page was created specifically to discuss the changes you proposed (see "suggestions to improve neutrality of the Article" above), and you have now again bypassed the Talk page and made a similar sweeping deletion of large swathes of relevant content. Someone needs to reverse Collect's deletions so that they can be discussed and consensus reached. I am loathe to do it myself for fear of being accused of "edit warring" but I am not sure of what the protocol actually is in this circumstance. I really do not understand why it is so difficult to simply discuss the issue first before making the edits? If there is no contention or opposition to a proposed edit then of course it is fine to go ahead and enact. However that is not the case with the wholesale deletions that Collect has made. Dewanifacts (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the name of a living person whom there was consensus should not have any implication that he hired murderers in this BLP-compliant article. I removed about 4K as a result. I fear you are making an attack against my modest edit [1]. At this point, moreover, you have zero outside support for your seeming belief that Shrien Dewani should be tarred in any way in this article. Your accusation against me personally of "similar sweeping deletion of large swathes of relevant content is a simple falsehood if you wish it apply it to my edit here. I, in fact, suggest you now accept the WP:CONSENSUS for which you appear the only person opposed as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Both Robert McClenon and Nick Cooper have indicated that they do not agree with the scale of your deletions, Collect. So that makes at least three of us who have expressed opposition to your deletions. Your interpretation of the WP:BLP policy appears to be a rather unique one. So far as I understand, the onus is on editors to fairly and accurately represent the facts. You seem to think that WP:BLP extends to editors being banned from mentioning the name of an acquitted person in an Article, even when those mentions are made in a factual and reputably sourced fashion. I think your interpretation of WP:BLP is incorrect and at the very least it needs to be discussed before you apply it to the Article. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I owe you an apology Collect. It may not have been you who made the large scale deletions this time round. I may have misread the diffs. It appears that Darouet made the majority of the deletions. My comments all still stand although they should be largely directed toward Darouet. The changes were made without consensus, and despite active opposition and indication that they needed to be discussed before being enacted. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have only one possible ally Robert McClenon at most who writes "any statement made in the lede should be included in the body." When the name of the living person was removed from the lead, any need for using the name in the body disintegrates into a fine powder. The discussions on the proper noticeboards, moreover, caution about any mention of a name of a person who has been so absolutely cleared (this is not a "mere OJ acquittal" that occurred.) With no one else to back your one-man consensus, note that contentious claims about living persons requites an actual positive consensus for inclusion per policy. To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. ... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, (WP:BLP) Clear now? Collect (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what you mean by "mere OJ acquittal", Collect - the case you refer to has an article that even uses the name of the accused in its title, O. J. Simpson murder case. Samsara 05:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

OJ was convicted in a civil suit - Dewani has not been charged in any venue at all. OJ thus can have an article, Dewani ought not. Collect (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is only one legal difference between a person who is acquitted and one who's not charged, and that is that in most legal systems, a person, once acquitted, can never stand trial for the same crime again. A person who has not (yet!) been charged still could be. Samsara 15:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Collect's interpretation of the WP:BLP policy is totally out of line with reality and with how Wikipedia crime Articles are presented. Collect states "note that contentious claims about living persons requites an actual positive consensus for inclusion per policy". There is nothing contentious about the claim that Shrien Dewani was accused of involvement in the crime. One cannot rewrite history. Shrien Dewani was alleged to have been involved and was subsequently exonerated. That is what occured. In my view it is a perversion of Wikipedia's mission for an editor or editors to attempt to excise factual information without very solid reason and precedent for doing so. The OJ Simpson case has already been mentioned as an example where the acquitted person is prominently referenced throughout the Article, and virtually every other crime saga that involved a person being exonerated, follows the same protocol. Reference the Articles relating to the deaths of Meredith Kercher, Caylee Anthony and the exoneration of Debra Milke and one sees that the names of the exonerated accused persons have not been excised from the Articles - in fact they are prominently and correctly referenced with full information to inform readers of why the accused persons were exonerated. The extreme interpretation of WP:BLP that Collect is proposing does not enjoy support anywhere on WIkipedia (that I can see) and more importantly, is not borne out by other Wikipedia articles. Darouet's edits should be reversed as they leave this article in a mess, and this discussion should continue on this Talk page if some editors believe that the Dewani case requires totally different treatment from all other crime coverage on Wikipedia. Perhaps it requires an RFC. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) A number of parallel issues were recently debated on Talk:Cecil (lion) (some of it now in its (most recent?) archive, iirc), and seeing this repeated here makes me think we need a more general RfC to establish what to do in cases where considerable news coverage exists on suspects against while no charges are brought or in cases where they've been acquitted. Samsara 07:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

An RfC here would require a positive consensus for inclusion per WP:BLP. Period. Collect (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Collect A brief look at your wikipedia history is enough to confirm that this is not the first time where you have tried to apply your extreme interpretation of WP:BLP. There is nothing in WP:BLP that outlaws the inclusion of information regarding someone being falsely accused of a crime, if that is in fact what occurred. You can repeat "positive consensus for inclusion" another ten times if you wish, but that does not make your argument any stronger, nor does it make that phrase relevant to the discussion being had. Shrien Dewani was falsely accused of being involved in the murder of his wife. That accusation made this case global news for the past 5 years and as is the case with every other Wikipedia crime article, exonerated persons are mentioned and referenced throughout. Unless you can make a case for why this crime should be treated differently to others, then the deletions need to be reversed and the pertinent information reinstated.Dewanifacts (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I cited exact quotes from the policy. That you find the policy to be "extreme" is more an indication of wanting to impugn living persons than anything else. And again - feel free to start a Request for Comment here. Until and unless you get a positive consensus behind your addition of the material about a living person, it has to stay out. Collect (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Collect I searched and cannot find it anywhere in WP:BLP. Please point out exactly where it is stated. Contrary to your perseveration and repeated false assertions, positive consensus was required to remove the material since the material did not contravene WP:BLP. Your arrogance is noted, but it won't intimidate me or anyone else. I do not seek to impugn any living person, in fact anyone with their eye on the ball could see that I have been one of the staunchest defenders of this particular living person's (Shrien Dewani's) right to a fair and just representation here on Wikipedia. However that does not mean that I agree with attempts to rewrite the history of this case and expunge Shrien Dewani's name from the history of the case. Exonerated Amanda Knox is mentioned throughout the Wikipedia article on Meredith Kercher's murder. OJ Simpson is mentioned repeatedly throughout the article on his ex wife's murder. Casey Anthony is mentioned repeatedly throughout the article on her daughter's murder. All these people were exonerated. Why aren't you removing their names from all of those articles? Why do you think a different protocol applies to this article and to Shrien Dewani? Dewanifacts (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. is part of WP:BLP. And quite clear. Collect (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The material in question is neutral, based on high quality reliable sources and ctotally complies with Wikipedia's content policies. Therefore it should never have been deleted. You are attempting to hide behind the "good faith BLP objection" phrase, but in actual fact your argument is not in good faith, is not grounded in reality, does not follow standard wikipedia protocol for crime articles and essentially creates a new set of rules for this particular crime, when other exonerated persons (such as Amanda Knox, Debra Milke, OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony) are afforded full and proper coverage in articles relating to the crimes of which they were cleared. The material in question has existed for 4+ years on this Article. There was no imminent rush to suddenly delete all reference to Shrien Dewani, far less any rational justification for doing so. The proper way to approach removing it was to discuss it on the Talk page and gain consensus first. That was not done and the material should be reinstated. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Futhermore, I take exception to the erroneous assertion that the addition of the material about a living person was added by me. Much of that information has been part of the article since the week the crime was first committed back in 2010. Shrien Dewani's name has been on this article's page since that time, because he was inextricably linked to the case as a victim of the robbery and kidnapping, the husband of the murder victim, and as the man who was falsely accused of being complicit in the crime. I only started editing in recent months, so those inclusions far pre-date my participation in editing this article. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I have encountered's Collect over-zealous application (some would say gaming) of BLP in the past, I am absolutely staggered at his wholesale removal of Shrien Dewani's name from this article. Given that virtually the entire reporting focus on this case was on Shrien, and his fight to prove his innocence, to remove his name from this page on some distorted interpretation of a technicality will make Wikipedia a global laughing stock. I have therefore reverted Collect's bizarre and destructive edits, and fully intend to revert any attempt to reinstate them. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Application of WP:BLP to this article

We require clarification regarding the applicability of WP:BLP to this article. Does WP:BLP prescribe that an exonerated person's name should be excluded from an article pertaining to a criminal case in which they were once considered a suspect? Dewanifacts (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion:

• The relevant section of the policy is this. The policy is sometimes difficult to apply, as a person may, through their association with an incident, cross a threshold beyond which they will never plausibly be considered a "relatively unknown [person]", in the words of the policy. People such as Shrien Dewani or Walter Palmer will, as a result of coverage that happened outside of Wikipedia and is beyond our ability to influence, never be able to resume lives as a "relatively unknown person". It's clear then that the aforementioned section of policy does not apply to them. Instead, it is in both the interest of such persons and ours to accurately cover the prior association and subsequent elimination from relevant investigations. Given my definition that what I said applies to people who can no longer be considered "relatively unknown" due to extensive news coverage, there is (by definition) obviously no shortage of reliable sources concerning the details of any such case. Sources can therefore be used to write about such a person in keeping with other parts of WP:BLP (esp., everything must be rigurously sourced, nothing can be inferred). Further principles, such as due weight, continue to apply. Samsara 15:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that interpretation. That is how I read and understand it too. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Incorrect interpretation of "relatively unknown" entirely. "Well-known persons" is not in any way applicable to Shrien Dewani in the first place - his only notoriety comes from the accusations. And the requirement that material must have a positive consensus applies in every case, by the way. Collect (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary on Collect's latest edit states "a person who is only known for one event is "relatively unknown" by Wikipedia usage". Can you provide any substantiation for this claim, Collect? Notwithstanding Collect's selective and obscure interpretation of the words "relatively unknown", how does Wikipedia treat cases like this in practice and does precedent form any part of the process? The Amanda Knox case is an obvious parallel. Knox and Sollecito were completely unknown before being falsely implicated in a crime, and then exonerated. The article on that crime, is replete with mentions of Knox and the reasons for her exoneration. Does a different set of rules apply to some exonerated persons? Dewanifacts (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BLP1E. I do not really think your iterated disagreement with the clear wording or WP:BLP is impressive, alas. Knox, by the way, was not absolutely exonerated if you care to read the current sources: Sept 7, 2015 "that raised reasonable doubt of their guilt" is as far as the last ruling reached. That noted, the Amanda Knox BLP 58K in absolute total size - this article is not set up as a biography of Denawi, therefore devoting 35K to a person where the courts said there was no basis at all for the charge is a lot more than the Knox BLP has. As there is no substantive basis for dragging Shrien Denawi's name through mud, then the WP:BLP rule that material must have a positive consensus for inclusion certainly applies here. Collect (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E states: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: 1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. 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. 3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented."

Conditions 2 and 3 clearly do not apply, which means that WP:BLP1E is irrelevant to this discussion. As is your argument regarding Knox. She was as clearly exonerated as Dewani was, yet for some reason you seem to have no issue with her name being mentioned all the way through the article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher Dewanifacts (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Show me sources about Mr. Dewani which are about his notability unconnected with the murder of his wife. Criterion 1 is clearly invoked. Show me any sources which show him having continuing notability - noting that we have no article on him as a person. So 2. is also invoked. As his "role" in the murder (the actual topic of this article) was essentially non-existent per court ruling far beyond "not proven guilty", condition 3 is also invoked. As for the mention of Knox in a different article, that is irrelevant here - I am not able to edit or comment about any articles concerning "US Politics broadly defined" and thus no matter my feelings on that article, I can not mention it at all, nor even tell you my opinions on such an article. You might, moreover, note my earlier comments relating to such articles, and be assured my position here is entirely consistent with my position on other articles. Collect (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be making up your own rules and interpretations as you go along. No arguments regarding condition 1. Condition 2 however is another story. You cannot possibly contend that Mr Dewani "remains, or is likely to remain a low profile individual". That simply is not the case so condition 2 does not apply. Regarding condition 3, clearly the event was significant. Clearly, Mr Dewani's role in the event was absolutely substantial, even though he had nothing to do with the murder. He was one of the two victims, he suffered a terrifying ordeal, he lost his wife, and moreover he suffered a malicious prosecution for 4 years. How can anyone possibly claim that his role was not substantial or not well documented? Objectively, draw a line through condition 3. So only one of the 3 conditions are met. Amanda Knox case has nothing to do with US politics, so whatever point you were trying to make there, falls flat.Dewanifacts (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

(removable by anyone who thinks this post conceivably refers to US politics in any sense) In the AK article: said that the conviction had not been based on solid proof and there had been resentment at the Knox family which amounted to "anti-Americanism", Knox has stated her intention to become an advocate for others who were wrongfully convicted, and she attends events related to the Innocence Project and related organizations. Which are reasonably related to "US politics, broadly construed". And, of course, even more specific connections made on the BLP talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about the Amanda Knox Article? The relevant parallel is the article regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher. Notwithstanding that, since you mention the AK article, it's very existence weakens rather than strengthens whatever tenuous point you are trying to make here. Knox was exonerated just like Dewani, yet her name is mentioned throughout the Murder of Meredith Kercher article and she even has her own article. Those observations alone render your argument re: Dewani obsolete. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

BLP1E is used to determine whether or not a person should have an article. Is a separate article on Shrien Dewani proposed? Samsara 20:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If his name is not given in this article, then there is no utility to having his name added. At this point, he is not mentioned by name - thus a positive actual consensus per WP:BLP is required by the normal reading of English sentences in the policy. Collect (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is descending into absurdity. The only reason Shrien Dewani's name is not given in the article right now, is because you and another editor went through and systematically removed every single mention of it a couple of days ago. For almost 5 years the Article mentioned Shrien Dewani by name and for those 5 years positive consensus existed for his name to be in the article. Who made you God to suddenly decry the inclusion of Shrien Dewani's name? There is no consensus to support your spurious assertion that inclusion of his name is a WP:BLP violation and thus no justification for having expunged his name from the article.Dewanifacts (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And you find putting his name more than three dozen times into an article is an honest attempt here? I find the use of a name more than there dozen times and making sure all readers know the name of a person accused of murder, where the person was exonerated, smells pretty horribly. BTW, this became an issue when the ruling that there will be no inquest continuation was noted this month. Collect (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the number of times his name is mentioned to be an ancillary and almost irrelevant factor. What is relevant, is the context in which Shrien Dewani's name is mentioned.I have already made it clear that I actually wholeheartedly support the removal of much of the superfluous information (including many Shrien Dewani's name mentions) throughout the article, including a lot of content that I added myself. I have proposed such changes for discussion on this Talk page and instead of engage in the discussion there, Collect and a few other users have taken it upon themselves to simply bypass the collaborative effort and make sweeping controversial changes without consulting other members, under the guise of pretending to correct a WP:BLP violation. Collect's edit summary claims that "no inquest = no possibility of him remaining in the news". This statement is disingenuous. One cannot possibly know what the future holds. Were the Hindocha family to pursue civil action or should the NPA decide to finally prosecute Mbolombo, then this case would undoubtedly once again be in the news and Shrien Dewani's name would be promninent. Shrien Dewani will never again be "relatively unknown", and that really ends the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 16:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of comparison, the exonerated Amanda Knox is mentioned over six dozen times in the article on the murder of Meredith Kercher, and a further three dozen times in the footnotes. So relatively speaking, Shrien Dewani's name is mentioned a lot less. Yet I still support removing many of the mentions that I agree are excessive and superflous based on their context. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Collect -- rip it all out. Unfortunately I have to go real life and don't have time to do it myself. NE Ent 15:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it would be impossible to avoid mention of Shrien Dewani's name at all as he was put on trial for the murder even if that trial then collapsed due to lack of evidence. However, I think that he was found to have no charges to answer would need to also be strongly stated. Red Fiona (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

His name is clearly stated in the footnotes - but should it be given more than three dozen times in the article? Collect (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it needs to be more prominent than the footnotes, as AFAIK, footnotes are not part of the article. I understand your objections, but it reads peculiarly to someone who knows nothing about the case if the husband is just referred to as that throughout. Would there be any way of re-writing the article to minimise the use of his name but still mentioning his name at least once in the main text? Red Fiona (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Red Fiona, what are your thoughts on how the article read on September 17th before being locked? I'm not sure exactly how to link to it but I'll try - CLICK HERE Dewanifacts (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I think DF means this version link. Samsara 18:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My suggestions got a bit long so I've put them all here [[2]]. Hope the link works. Red Fiona (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestions are well reasoned, Fiona. Some of them coincide with things that have already been suggested on this very Talk page. Scroll up to Section 34 "Suggestions to improve neutrality of this article" and you will see that I suggested stuff along the same lines as what you have suggested. I personally thin that all the stuff about Shrien Dewani';s version of events and inconsistencies etc should be scrapped (and I was the one who added that material originally), and I also think the extradition section is largely irrelevant now. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• I saw this RfC referenced on Jimbo's talk page. It is a bit too open-ended in my opinion. Yes, the name of the husband can be mentioned, but I suggest that one of the involved editors here set forth possible A, B and C alternative approaches so as to give the RfC more cogency and give outside editors more impetus to opine. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFC was intended purely to clarify the straightforward question regarding whether including the acquitted person's name constitutes a BLP violation, given a couple of editors seemed to think it did, and had taken it upon themselves to make wholesale deletions of the acquitted person's name from the article. I understand what you're suggesting re: alternative approaches but at this stage I think it is a bit unnecessary to introduce that level of discussion into the RFC as that is what the Talk page is here for; to discuss proposed amendments and to debate alternative ways of presenting the information. From the responses so far, its fairly clear that Collect and Darouet were out of line in deciding that the inclusion of the acquitted person's name constituted a BLP violation. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. -- I too found my way here via reference on Jimbo's talk page. I also agree with Coretheapple that the husband's name can and should be mentioned in the article -- but to avoid BLP violations it must not be implied or suggested that there remains any question about his guilt/innocence unless multiple reliable sources indicate such and comprise the mainstream view. I note that most of the article as it stands, and certainly most of the lede focus on Shrien. Query: is the murder itself what's notable, or is the investigation and political/jurisprudential aspects what are notable? The focus of the article does not really reflect the title of the article. I also agree that the RfC is not specific enough to produce a worthy discussion from uninvolved editors. Minor4th 18:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The idea that the "problem" is the number of time Shrien Dewani's name is mentioned, and that somehow means that every single mention of it should be expunged, is utterly preposterous. Clearly there are plenty of places where a number of uses can be changed to "he"/"his" since the sentence structure and placement will make it fairly obvious who is being spoken about. It should be noted, though, that in many instances the use of his full name is unavoidable, otherwise we will end up with ambiguous and potentially confusing text. It goes without saying that in many cases we would be using just the accused's surname, but that is impossible here. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dewanifacts

Per this discussion, I have noted that User:Dewanifacts has admitted to a conflict of interest in regard to this article, and have requested that they cease to edit the article directly per the requirements of WP:COI. Dewanifacts should make suggestions on this talk page, which can be effected by non-conflicted editors if they agree with them. I have also served notice that I will delete any edits that Dewanifacts makes directly to the article, as their COI does not allow them to approach the subject with the WP:NPOV required by Wikipedia. I am a totally uninvolved editor - I haven;t read the article, and have no independent knowledge of what it is about. BMK (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK I have read through WP:COI and I cannot see anything that gives you the power to "insist" on me not editing the article. In fact it seems like you are acting contradictory to the Wikipedia "assume good faith" doctrine. Who or what gives you the authority to ban me from editing the article? Please can you clarify this so that this is 100% transparent and I am satisfied that you have the power to make such a directive. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As you are an SPA with a self-declared conflict of interest, you will notbe allowed to edit the article. BMK (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Says who? I don't know you from Adam. You're just another editor. I'm not abiding by your declaration, unless/until you show me what authority you have to make such a directive, or where in Wiki policies it says that an SPA with a COI is barred from making edits Dewanifacts (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:COI:

COI editing is strongly discouraged. It undermines the public's confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked. (emophasis added)

You yourself have declared yourself to be an SPA with a conflict of interest in your statements on this AN thread and through your edits, which are to this article and talk page almost exclusively.[3] You are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia in an unbiased way, you are here to accomplish a mission which is extrinsic to, and actually antagonistic towards, its aims. Therefore, I am following the COI policy by strongly discouraging you from editing the article. The method I have chosen to discourage you is by clearly stating that I will revert any edit you make directly to the article - although I should have been clearer to say that if you start a discussion here, and there is a consensus of editors to support your proposed change, it doesn't matter very much who makes the change.

I do this under one of our primary principles, WP:Ignore all rules, which says:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (emphasis in original)

As for what special authority I have: absolutely none. I cannot block you or put you under a topic ban. However, any other Wikipedia editor could do what I intend to do, so I suggest that you follow the procedure I outlined, keeping in mind the last part of the bit I quoted from WP:COI: "If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked." - not by me, but by an uninvolved admin. BMK (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK’s “As you are an SPA with a self-declared conflict of interest, you will notbe allowed to edit the article” is, of course, bullshit. Similarly, “I will revert any edit you make directly to the article” is not sanctioned by any policy. Bully tactics are not helpful here. If there are concerns about SPA and COI, this article talk page is not the place to argue about them or to browbeat the COI editor. Heading this section with a username also disregards talk page guidelines. Just saying’. (No dog in this fight.) Writegeist (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Writegeist: The policy basis for my intentions are above, and are quite clear. If you believe that adhering to policy is "bullying", I can't help that. These intended actions are justified by the situation, which can, of course, change. BMK (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(inserting) More nonsense. There is no basis in any policy above for your stated intention to summarily delete any edits this user makes on the article. (Unless they violate BLP, NPOV, etc., or edits disruptively.) Adherence to policy is not bullying. Bullying is you misrepresenting policy to browbeat another editor. But at least you got BRD right. Your chosen section heading still contravenes the guideline--which rather speaks to your intent. If you intend to persist with officious, unwarranted, threatening comments to the editor, please at least take them to their talk page. Writegeist (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll find out, won't we? Either an admin will warn me for non-policy compliant editing - although it's difficult to see how a revert on the basis of WP:NPOV or no WP:CONSENSUS could be non-compliant; or one will warn me for being disruptive - which, of course, is not at all my intention (spelled out clearly above) and I have no intention of edit warring; or nothing will happen except the normal give-and-take of editing on Wikipedia - albeit that one of the editors will have an clearly-announced specific POV purpose:

I represent an independant website dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani. We have no agenda other than seeking the truth and achieving true justice for Anni Dewani. [4] (emphasis added)

I, on the other hand, have no such bias. BMK (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

BMK The key problem with your aggressive antagonostic approach here is that you have failed to familiarise yourself with the context and the editors involved. My personal wish to see justice served in a high profile case does not in any way cause me to edit Wikipedia disruptively or fall foul of any rules. If you had a look at my edits and at the Talk page you would see that I have already been editing in exactly the fashion you have suggested for the past few months, with my COI status declared and dealt with long ago. I don't make contentious edits, and I propose everything on the Talk page for discussion before editing. So there was never any need for your gung-ho bullying line which assumed bad faith from the outset. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have valid information that other editors here have the sort of personal bias and COI that you do, present it, and it will be evaluated in the same way that the evidence concerning you was. Hand-waving, though, is not acceptable. Until such time, the focus here is not on anyone else but you, your attempt to deflect attention notwithstanding. BMK (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What a bizarre comment. I haven't said a word about other editors possessing bias nor have I tried to deflect attention. I've addressed each concern directly and shown ample evidence of my good faith editing, commitment to collaborative editing and discussion on the talk page and helpful contributions to this article. You, on the other hand, have tried to bully and threaten me with instant edit warring regardless of merit, should I dare to enact an edit on the article. And you were put back in your place by other editors who admonished you for far overstepping acceptable behaviour. I suggest you let this matter drop and that next time you go on the attack, you make damn sure that you've done your homework to ensure your attack is justified. Dewanifacts (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"You have failed to familiarise yourself with ... the editors involved." I'm not concerned about any of the other editors, because their potential conflicts of interest and POV-purposes has not been made an issue of. I'm concerned only with the editing of the one contributor who has admitted to having a serious conflict of interest and a purpose above and beyond improving the encyclopedia in a neutral manner - you.

I think there's little value in continuing this discussion: you have admitted to your conflicts and agenda, and I have told you how I intend to respond to that should you try to edit the article without consensus. The proof of this pudding will be in the eating, not in endless palaver about how it might taste. BMK (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

More bullying and threats. You are not doing yourself any favours. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Call it what you want, it really doesn't concern me. My intentions are within policy, your editing without consensus would not be. BMK (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who sees your approach as bullying. Your intentions are not within policy. WP:BRD clearly encourages bold editing and reverts are justified only if the edits are contentious or problematic. There is no Wiki policy anywhere that prescribes that a SPA/COI cannot make edits, nor does any policy prescribe that other editors would be justified in reversing edits purely on the basis that they were made by a SPA/COI. Therefore your stated intentions constitute both bullying and a contravention of wiki policy. I suggest you steer well clear of such behaviour. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dewanifacts: I should also advise you to read WP:BRD. If you edit the article, and one of your edits is reverted by myself or another editor, please do not revert it back, which is the first step towards edit warring. Instead, bring it to the talk page to determine if there is a consensus for your edit. BMK (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I should advise you that were you to reverse one of my edits for the sole reason that it was made by an SPA with a COI, then it would be you who would be initiating an edit war. Almost all my previous edits have been made when consensus has been gained or no opposition raised and they will continue to be that way. My edits will be treated on their merits, just like any other user's edits. The only difference will be that they may come under more of a microscope which I am fine with. If I had wished to fly under the radar and sneakily edit to some disruptive agenda, then I would have chosen a username that did not contain the word "Dewani". Dewanifacts (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand the concept of edit warring. A single revert is not an edit war. Please read WP:EW. It remains a fact that if you edit the article without consensus to do so, I will revert your edit on the basis of your announced bias. BMK (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good, well I'm glad we've cleared that up. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

GeoGroup template

I've not bumped into this before (it's the template that creates a box with map links, currently in the Robbery, kidnapping and murder section. We've got the various locations (which lead to map links) in the infobox, so is there any reason to have this box in the article? Bromley86 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the idea is to allow seeing them both on the same map without further fiddling. I think that's useful. Samsara 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)