Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

PROPOSED REDRAFT - drastically shortened version of article

Collapsed draft

Anni Dewani Born Anni Ninna Hindocha (1982-03-12)12 March 1982 Mariestad, Sweden Disappeared 13 November 2010 (aged 28) Gugulethu, South Africa 33°58′42″S 18°34′26″E Cause of death Gunshot to neck Body discovered Lingelethu West, South Africa 34°03′01″S 18°39′23″E Nationality Swedish Occupation Engineer Spouse Shrien Dewani Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who, while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town, after the taxi in which she was travelling was carjacked. Based on the later discredited confessions of three of the crime's perpetrators, South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that Anni 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 her husband was exonerated, the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations. Taxi driver Zola Robert Tongo pleaded guilty to the charges of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder and obstruction of the administration of justice, in accordance with a Section 105A plea bargain, and was sentenced on 7 December 2010 to 18 years in jail. Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to murder in August 2012 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison in accordance with a Section 105A plea bargain. Xolile Mngeni, 23, was convicted of murder on 19 November 2012, and sentenced to life in jail. The husband's trial began on 6 October 2014. On 24 November 2014, subsequent to the closure of the prosecution case, counsel for the husband argued for the trial to be halted and charges dismissed pursuant to Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing a lack of any credible evidence linking him to the crime. On 8 December 2014, the Western Cape High Court granted the application and dismissed all charges against Shrien Dewani. Background Anni Dewani The Hindocha family, Hindus living in Uganda, were forced to leave the country in the early 1970s after ruler Idi Amin expelled all Asians living there. Granted residence in Sweden in 1975, they settled in Mariestad, where they started their own company and where their daughter Anni was born and raised. After studying electrical engineering at the Gävle University College from 2002 to 2006, she worked at Ericsson and lived in Stockholm. 6 months after her death, in a Hindu ceremony described as "simple but moving", her family scattered her ashes in her favourite area of the Vänern lake. Marriage Anni Hindocha visited her cousin Sneha in Luton, Bedfordshire, England, in 2009, and met Shrien Dewani through mutual friends. Their first formal date was to watch The Lion King at the Lyceum Theatre in London's West End, and they then alternated their weekend meetings between Bristol and Stockholm. After gaining permission from her family, Shrien proposed to Anni at the Hôtel Ritz, Paris, in June 2010, with a £25,000 diamond engagement ring balanced on a red rose. Shortly afterwards, Anni moved to Bristol to be with her fiancé. Under her maiden name, in 2010 Anni entered Bristol's Top Model competition. The couple married at the Lake Powai resort outside Mumbai, India, on 29 October 2010. 500 guests attended the traditional three-day Hindu marriage event. They were planning a civil ceremony that would take place in the UK in 2011, for friends who could not attend the Indian ceremony. Robbery, kidnapping and murder After landing at Cape Town International Airport on 7 November 2010, the couple took an internal flight, and stayed for four nights at the Kruger National Park. On 12 November, the couple returned to Cape Town International Airport, where they met and engaged taxi driver Zola Tongo to drive them to the five-star Cape Grace hotel. On 13 November, having retained Tongo as a tour guide the couple were driven through the city in Tongo’s VW Sharan into Gugulethu to drive past a BBQ restaurant (Mzolis) and on to dinner at Surfside restaurant in Strand. After dining at the restaurant in Strand, Tongo drove the couple back into Gugulethu. Shortly after turning off the main road the vehicle was hijacked by two armed men. After driving a short distance, Tongo was ejected from the taxi. After driving for a further 20 minutes or so and after having been robbed of his money, wallet, designer watch and mobile phone, Shrien Dewani was also ejected from the vehicle. Shrien Dewani encountered a person on the street, who assisted him in calling the police. At 07:50 on the morning of 14 November, Anni Dewani was found dead inside the back of the VW Sharan in Lingelethu West. She had suffered a single gunshot wound to her neck inflicted by a copy of a TT pistol in 9mm calibre. Police later confirmed that Anni's Giorgio Armani wristwatch, a white-gold and diamond bracelet, her handbag and her BlackBerry mobile phone were missing and assumed stolen. The estimated value of all items stolen during the armed robbery was R90,000. Post-mortem examination, repatriation and cremation Anni Dewani's body was taken to Cape Town hospital. The post-mortem examination revealed bruising on Anni’s inner leg indicating a struggle. It also indicated that Anni died from a single gunshot that passed through her hand and neck, severing an artery. There was no sign of sexual assault. On 17 November, Anni Dewani's body was released by the South African authorities and returned to the United Kingdom on a British Airways flight, accompanied by her husband. She was cremated in London in a traditional Hindu ceremony on 20 November. Her ashes were scattered into a lake close to her home town of Mariestad in Sweden. Investigation - Sequence of arrests and confessions Xolile Mngeni was arrested on Tuesday 16th November 2010 and made a videotaped confession in the presence of Captain Jonker of the South African Police Service. In his confession, Mngeni admitted involvement in a hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims and claimed that Qwabe shot Anni Dewani during a struggle for her handbag. Mziwamadoda Qwabe was arrested at around 01:00 on Thursday 18th November 2010. After initial denials, Qwabe was allowed to consult with arrested co-conspirators Mbolombo and Mngeni and subsequently admitted involvement in the hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims, and claimed that Mngeni shot Anni Dewani from his position in the passenger seat of the vehicle. . Later that same day, during a recorded interview at 5:21pm, Qwabe changed his story alleging that the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. . Monde Mbolombo was arrested in the early hours of 18th November 2010. After initially denying involvement Mbolombo made a recorded confession at 4:30pm admitting arranging a hijacking and armed robbery operation. The confession made no mention of a planned murder or of Shrien Dewani's involvement. The following day, Friday 19 November 2010, Mbolombo changed his story alleging that the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Zola Tongo reported the hijacking to a police station in Gugulethu soon after he was ejected from the vehicle on Saturday 13 November 2010, and made a statement claiming that he was an unknowing victim. On Wednesday 17 November, Tongo gave a statement to Officer Hendrickse of the SAPS again claiming that he was an innocent victim. On Thursday 18 November, Tongo appointed attorney William De Grass. On Saturday 20 November, Tongo surrendered to police and alleged that the operation was a planned murder staged to look like a random hijack, at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Evidence of a fifth conspirator An audio recording of a telephone call made at 18:38 on the night of the hijacking, from Mbolombo to Tongo provided strong proof that there was a fifth conspirator to the plot. Mbolombo is heard to say to Tongo “There’s five of us, remember”. When cross examined on this point, neither Tongo or Mbolombo would divulge the true identity of the fifth person to the court, contradicting each others’ answers. The identity of this fifth person remains unknown. Media coverage In South Africa, media coverage in the case was high from the discovery of the body. With an economy reliant on the influx of tourists, tour operators reported an immediate drop in bookings, as potential visitors were made aware of the country's high murder rate: on average, 46 per day. Secondly, concern was expressed at many levels that the killing would negate the goodwill resulting from the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The assignment of the Police Hawks team and the early arrests, conviction and statement implicating Shrien Dewani only added further fuel to media coverage. BBC Panorama An investigation by the BBC Panorama series in March 2012 reported that the original South African post-mortem report showed that the single bullet actually passed through Anni's left hand, followed by her chest and the wound on her neck was actually an exit wound. The report said the bullet left what it called "an irregular gunshot exit wound, " which suggested that there had been some sort of struggle. A second Panorama programme in September 2013 revisited the case, and highlighted numerous inconsistencies between the physical evidence, witness testimony, and the South African prosecutors' purported version of events. In particular it noted that the forensic evidence was not properly collected, but what was pointed to was an accidental discharge in a struggle, rather than a deliberate killing. In addition, while Tongo's supposed cut of the fee for the killing was between only a half and third of his usual monthly salary, the two gunmen made substantially more from the theft of the Dewanis' belongings than the value of the "contract". The programme also showed CCTV evidence that supported the idea that what was being arranged between the taxi driver and the intermediary on behalf of Shrien was a surprise helicopter flight for Anni, this being what the money he changed on the morning of the murder was actually for. Plea bargains Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Zola Tongo were offered reduced sentences in exchange for guilty pleas and the promise of truthful testimony against Shrien Dewani and in other criminal proceedings related to the crime. These plea deals were granted in accordance with Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act. Monde Mbolombo was granted full immunity from prosecution, in exchange for his promise of truthful testimony against Shrien Dewani and in any other criminal proceedings related to the crime. This plea deal was granted in accordance with Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act Conviction and sentencing of Zola Tongo On 7 December 2010 Zola Tongo appeared in the Western Cape High Court and in accordance with his plea deal under Section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act, pleaded guilty to the armed robbery, kidnapping and murder of Anni Dewani, crimes that he alleged were at the behest of Shrien Dewani. According to the terms of his Section 105A agreement, Tongo was sentenced to 18 years in prison, contingent on him testifying truthfully against Shrien Dewani in any future legal proceedings. Tongo was expected to give evidence in the trials of Mngeni and Qwabe in 2011 and 2012. Qwabe avoided trial by pleading guilty pursuant to a Section 105A plea deal. Tongo was not called as a witness at Mngeni’s trial in 2012. Tongo is currently serving his 18-year sentence in Malmesbury prison, and will be eligible for release in 2019. Conviction and sentencing of Mziwamadoda Qwabe In pre-trial hearings on 18 February, at Wynberg Magistrates Court, counsel for Mziwamadoda Qwabe argued that the court was unable to provide a fair trial for his client. Thabo Nogemane said: "I am instructed that some unknown police officer assaulted him by means of a big torch. He was hit all over his body. He said the statement was a suggestion put to him by the police. They already had the allegations so they told him: 'Just sign here.' I wouldn't refer to it as a confession, just a statement." According to the terms of his Section 105A agreement, Qwabe was sentenced to 25 years in prison, contingent on him testifying truthfully in future legal proceedings relating to the case. Qwabe will be eligible for release in 2027. Trial of Xolile Mngeni and surrounding events In 2011, Mngeni's lawyer, Vusi Tshabalala, stated that his client had been suffocated with a plastic bag before signing a statement admitting his involvement in the killing, further suggesting police resorted to "irregular methods" because of the pressure they were under to solve the high-profile case. The start of Mngeni's trial was delayed, and on 13 June 2011, it was announced that Mngeni had had brain surgery to remove a tumour. Despite having admitted to his role in the robbery and kidnapping of Anni Dewani in a videotaped confession, Mngeni pleaded "not guilty" at the start of his 2012 trial, claiming that he had an alibi and was not at the scene of the crime. Mngeni’s lawyers argued that his initial confession should be ruled inadmissible as evidence because it was allegedly extracted using torture. Justice Robert Henney ruled against Mngeni and said that the confession was admissible. Before testifying in the Mngeni trial, key witness Monde Mbolombo read out a prepared statement confessing to lying in his two previous affidavits and promised to tell the truth when testifying. Two years later in the trial of Shrien Dewani, he admitted that he had committed perjury whilst testifying in the Mngeni trial. On 19 November 2012, Mngeni was convicted of murder and was ruled to have been the person who shot Anni Dewani. He was sentenced to life in jail. In July 2014, it was confirmed that a medical parole application had been made for Mngeni who was terminally ill with a brain tumour. He was denied parole, and died in jail on 18 October 2014. Extradition and trial of Shrien Dewani After a long legal battle Shrien Dewani was extradited from the United Kingdom to South Africa on 7 April 2014. Upon arrival he was arrested, charged and ordered to stand trial for allegedly arranging the murder of his wife. On 6 October 2014, Shrien Dewani's trial began. He was charged with five offences: conspiracy to commit kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder, kidnapping, and defeating the ends of justice. He pleaded not guilty to all five charges. During the trial, under cross examination, the key witnesses who alleged Mr Dewani's involvement - Zola Tongo, Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Monde Mbolombo - contradicted their previous statements and each other on most of the key elements of the "murder for hire" story. Tongo and Mbolombo were found to have fabricated calls and text messages that did not exist, refused to identify a fifth conspirator referred to in taped recordings, and Qwabe refused to explain to the court why Anni was driven into a residential area. Monday 24 November 2014. Subsequent to the closure of the prosecution case, counsel for Shrien Dewani argued for the case to be dismissed under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing a lack of any credible evidence linking his client to the crime. Monday 8 December 2014. The application for dismissal under Section 174 was granted by the Honourable Judge Traverso and Shrien Dewani was acquitted and exonerated of all involvement. In her Judgement, Judge Traverso ruled that there was no credible evidence linking Shrien Dewani to the crime and explained her ruling by saying that “ 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 ” The Court ruled that Xolile Mngeni could not have been the person who shot Anni, overturning the finding of Justice Henney in the Mngeni trial. The Court ruled that some of the key conclusions reached in the 2012 Mngeni trial were erroneous, based on flawed forensics and the admitted lies of Monde Mbolombo. The Court ruled that Monde Mbolombo had again committed perjury and would not be granted indemnity from prosecution. Judge Traverso noted that "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". Monde Mbolombo Monde Mbolombo's has not been prosecuted or punished for his self confessed role in the crime, nor for his self confessed perjury whilst testifying. Complaint about judicial conduct On 22 January 2015, a complaint was lodged by the Higher Education Network, alleging judicial bias and prejudiced behaviour of Judge Traverso in the trial of Shrien Dewani. On 25 April 2015, a Judicial Conduct Committee dismissed the HETN's complaint, describing it as "frivolous" and lacking in substance. The National Prosecuting Authority declined to appeal the judgement or lodge any complaint against Judge Traverso. Coroner's inquest Subsequent to Shrien Dewani's exoneration in December 2014, the family of Anni Dewani asked for a UK coroner's court to reopen the inquest into Anni's death and to compel Shrien Dewani to publicly answer questions. On 9 September 2015, at Brent Coroner's Court in North London, Coroner Andrew Walker indicated that he did not see that a full inquest was appropriate given that a criminal trial had been conducted in South Africa.. On October 9th, Coroner Walker confirmed that there is insufficient cause to resume an inquest. Walker told the court he was prohibited from reaching a conclusion that was inconsistent with the findings of the South African courts. References Dewanifacts (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I collapsed that to keep the talk page readable. Click on Show to see Dewanifacts' suggestion. I'd suggest that the extensive use of this primary source in the current & proposed articles is not great. Bromley86 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying Bromley86. Can you elaborate on why a transparent and detailed court judgement is a problematic source? In a case like this where the media misreported and focused on a witch hunt for the 4 years leading up to this judgement, it remains one of the few unbiased, substantiated documents relating to this saga. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with primary, especially court docs; I've used them myself. They've generally not a great idea for WP, as they're often extremely detailed and, for someone not an expert, open to interpretation. See WP:PRIMARY. For example, taking the current 2nd para of the Lead, it takes a looong time to actual verify the points supported using the court docs (namely premeditated kidnapping, murder for hire, behest of her husband, exonerated and lack of evidence (I say a long time, but actually I've had a quick look and then given up; so it certainly would take a long time, and I haven't confirmed that the statements are actually supported). Compare to using this Guardian article[1], which confirms everything in the second paragraph.

Another example, this time illustrating the point of weight. The new version (I think) adds Tongo and Mbolombo were found to have fabricated calls and text messages that did not exist, refused to identify a fifth conspirator referred to in taped recordings, and Qwabe refused to explain to the court why Anni was driven into a residential area., again supported by the court doc. Aside from the effort it takes to verify that using that doc, how do we judge whether or not this point is sufficiently important to be included in the article? It's hard to find reliable secondary sources that report this point, so why are we including it here? Bromley86 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be correct in saying that it is difficult to find mainstream media references to the points mentioned in your second paragraph. The problem with this case is that the mainstream media failed dismally in its responsibility to report the facts in an unbiased way, even after the acquittal judgement was delivered. So we are to some extent reliant on the court's judgement, which is the one place where the majority of the known facts are spelled out and the court's conclusions elaborated upon. To address the issue of whether those issues deserve weight, I guess thats where it is useful to become familiar with the specifics and nuances of the case. The factors mentioned (fabricated texts, criminals refusing to identify the fifth conspirator identity under oath, and criminal's refusal to explain why the victim was driven into a residential area) constitute some of the most salient and blatant examples of the deception and lies that were told to try to incriminate the exonerated person. It would be impractical to list every single lie and fabrication told under oath by the criminals because there were so many such instances. weight suggests that the main consideration is to ensure that minority viewpoints are not given undue prominence. This clearly is not a concern here, unless one takes the odd stance that the trial judge's conclusions based upon the evidence constitute a minority viewpoint undeserving of mention.Dewanifacts (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem here. You're deciding that something is important, and so needs to be in the article. However, the way that's usually done is by fairly represent[ing] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Following the link trail of "reliable sources", you end up at WP:WPNOTRS, which says Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Short story - if reliable secondary sources aren't interested in a point to report it, then it's likely not sufficiently notable (althouth WP calls that "weighty", or similar). Bromley86 (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and I understand what you are saying. The problem here is that the "secondary sources" (ie. the media) were part and parcel of the miscarriage of justice that saw this innocent person maliciously prosecuted and subjected to a trial by media for four years. This same media were made to look foolish and ill informed when the acquittal judgement was handed down, and in trying to save face, most media outlets presented the acquittal as a case of "not enough evidence of guilt" and focused almost solely on that disingenous explanation for the exoneration. In actual fact, the reason for exoneration was "ample evidence that the murder for hire story had been fabricated by lying criminals" but media outlets were reluctant to focus much on this because it made them complicit in the unjust persecution of a man who had endured numerous hardships; being a victim of a traumatic crime, having his bride murdered, being falsely accused of her murder and having his private life dragged into the public eye. I understand that Wikipedia is not an avenue for pursuing justice, however it is an avenue for relating neutral reliably sourced facts pertaining to a case such as this. That is my understanding anyway. What do others think? Dewanifacts (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon suggested that someone redraft the article to reflect the views being expressed that the exonerated person's name was mentioned too many times. The number of mentions has been drastically culled. Are people generally happy with the proposed redraft? Are there still issues?Are there any comments from Collect, Samsara, Red Fiona, Minor, Nick Cooper and other editors who have shown interest in this article? Dewanifacts (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1. In Infobox, use "spouse" and not "partner(s).

2. After first mention of name in lead, we can use "her husband" instead of full name.

3. The extra stuff about brain tumour etc. does not belong in the lead - which is supposed to be a simple summary of the article only.

4. The trial section can be substantially reduced - basically counsel asked for dismissal if charges, and the court did so with comment about no credible evidence.

5. Remove the extra bio about S.D. as not being really particularly pertinent to the topic of the article

6. The article section on the trial is far too long still.

7. Remove or combine too-short sections. Collect (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of/justification for your (2) above? Do you mean in the entire article, with all the potential of making Wikipedia look a laughing stock, given the extensive reporting of Shrien Dewani's extradition/trial? Nick Cooper (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is the use of a full name more than three dozen times in an article which makes Wikipedia look like a laughingstock. In general, Wikipedia uses simple pronouns most of the time per the manual of style. Collect (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

When the murdered woman and her falsely accused husband shre the same last name, surely you can understand that use of the full name becomes necessary so as not to confuse readers? Dewanifacts (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "her husband" should surely not be all that confusing - we do not assert she had multiple husbands, do we? Added mentions using "He" where the antecedent is clear is also called for by the MoS. Again, few would assume that "He" refers to the victim here. Collect (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

While I wouldn't go as far as Nick Cooper, I think at minimum Dewani's name might need to be mentioned once per section, just for readability's sake. I do, however agree with Collect's point 5. I'd put in as little as reasonable about Shrien Dewani. Does anyone know of a pre-existing article about a case where there has been a wrongly accused person stand trial so we might have something to act as a guideline? Red Fiona (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Many of the sections are entirely about specific other persons - adding the name in those sections is simply silly - this is an article about the murder. The Richard Jewell articles would seem a decent model - where there is significant praise for the wrongly accused person. Here there is no such balance at all. See also WP:MOSBIO.Collect (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I may have mis-spoken, I meant once per section where Dewani is mentioned. Sorry about that Red Fiona (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Edited to add: The only problem with using the Richard Jewell article as a framework is that he was thankfully never taken to trial, and it was an article about an incident where that actually happened that I was thinking of using.

The Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher article is the obvious parallel. Collect chooses to ignore it because Amanda Knox is mentioned liberally throughout and it doesn't support his interpretation of WP:BLP, but be that as it may, it is still the most obvious analogous article. I agree that the Jewell example is a bad one. Jewell was a commendable man deserving of praise. Whilst Dewani had nothing to do with his wife's murder, one would hardly say that he deserves commendation or applause for anything he has done so I find it a bit strange that Collect implies otherwise. Dewanifacts (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Although obviously it never got as far as a trial, Christopher Jefferies in relation to the Murder of Joanna Yeates may be a useful comparison. For a case that actually got to trial, try Colin Stagg as regards the Murder of Rachel Nickell. In neither case is there an apparent reluctance to name the wrongly-accused party. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have enacted Collect's suggestions 1,2,3,5 in the draft for appraisal. I think the lede reads oddly by reverting to "the husband" but lets see what others think. Items 4 & 6 are the same thing (trial section too long). I disagree with that claim. This isn't Twitter. We aren't trying to fit the article into a limited number of characters. That trial section distils the findings of an 87 page judgement into its most salient and important points - explaining how no credible evidence supported the allegation that Dewani was complicit, highlighting the erroneous judgement in the Mngeni trial that was based on perjured evidence and rounding off by referring to the remaining conspirators - Mbolombo and the unknown fifth - foreshadowing where this saga may still lead. All of this is relevant and important information. All of it is evidenced. None of it is conjecture. I don't think it should be excised. Lets see what other editors think. Dewanifacts (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I endorse the framework set out by Fiona - mention by name once per paragraph or section, whichever best serves readability. Samsara 13:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Fifth conspirator

“There’s five of us, remember”. When cross examined on this point, neither Tongo or Mbolombo would divulge the true identity of the fifth person to the court, contradicting each others’ answers.

I copied this from the above draft. I'm fairly confused about why there was any mystery about the fifth conspirator among the defendants. My reading of that draft is this testimony occured when it was still alleged that her husband was involved. So it would seem likely the defendents who were both claiming the husband was involved at the time, would just say it referred to the husband. I assume then that there was something about the call which suggested it wasn't. E.g. it was relating to how they could divide the money collected from the robbery. I presume given the coverage that this case got, there must be some sources somewhere discussing why the fifth conspirator couldn't have been the husband at the time. (Since it's now clear the husband wasn't involved, it obviously can't be now, so it remains a mystery, but this doesn't explain why it wasn't claimed the husband was the fifth conspirator.) BTW. if one of the defendents suggested the fifth conspirator was the husband, but the other said it was someone else or something, and this was the contradiction, I think the above wording is quite misleading. While it's true technically they didn't divulge the true identity, the one who was claiming it was the husband was clearly claiming it was the true identity. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Nil Einne is mostly correct. I agree that the above text should be worded better. The fifth person's identity was not a "mystery" to the conspirators. They were clearly covering for him/her. The audio recording's content as per court transcript was:

No there’s two of them.

Yes.

Huh?

There’s five of us, remember.

The reference to "two of them" is obviously a reference to the two victims, whilst the "five of us" cannot logically include Dewani as he was one of the two victims. It will probably never be known why Mbolombo didn't tell the same lie as Tongo and claim the fifth was Shrien Dewani, however it certainly fits with the overall pattern of the evidence, because the three perpetrators could not keep their stories straight from day one and this contradiction was one of many. Tongo testified first and claimed Dewani was the fifth person, despite the fact that this didn't make sense when discussing the split of the proceeds or in the context of the other part of the conversation. Mbolombo testified afterwards and could not explain who the fifth person was. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Further to prior comments, for the sake of clarifying. All of this testimony occurred in the trial of Shrien Dewani. The witnesses were not defendants. They were convicted felons (Tongo and Qwabe) and a confessed conspirator testifying in return for full indemnity from prosecution (Mbolombo). The original text could possibly be tidied a bit but upon reflection I don't fully understand Nil Einne's criticism. If both Tongo and Mbolombo told different and contradictory lies when questioned about the fifth, and neither of them divulged the true identity of the fifth, then why is it misleading to state exactly that? Nil Einne seems to suggest that if someone tells a lie, pretending it is the truth, then it is unfair for it to be later labeled a lie. It is difficult to agree with that line of argument. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To what end? I suspect many perjurers make "contradictory statements" and focusing on one or two of such statements is supposed to mean what or imply what? Collect (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It means that there was undeniable evidence that a fifth conspirator existed and remains unidentified and (presumably) free. Surely this is relevant information? Dewanifacts (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really - it means that liars referred to one as part of their lies. Things said by liars are not "undeniable evidence" of anything at all. Collect (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The transcript if of a conversation between two of the conspirators arranging the hijack. Its Mbolombo's words that are on the recording. Are you suggesting that he was lying to Tongo when he said "there's five of us, remember?" Dewanifacts (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Immaterial. Go with what reliable sources have to say, and avoid original synthesis as far as possible. Samsara 12:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If a person materially lied under oath, I would not necessarily take their word for the day of the week. Collect (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I largely concur but some common sense and context is relevant too. There is no logical reason why Mbolombo would have lied while speaking to Tongo during the call. Furthermore, if he had been lying to Tongo, then it would have been in Mbolombo's best interest to admit to that particular lie when he was being questioned about the "five" under oath. The very fact that a reputed judge who oversaw the entire body of evidence, chose to highlight the conversation and the witnesses' contradictory explanations in her judgement, speaks to its significance. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If and only if the judge declared "there was a fifth person" can we remotely imply that there was a fifth person. Amazingly enough "untruthful in part" can lead to "untruthful in all." Collect (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, stick with the sources and avoid original research. Samsara 09:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I stick by my point. If one of the people testifying had said the fifth conspirator was the husband and this made sense in the context of the conversation (I won't bother to discuss the case when it didn't since neither of them said this anyway), then it is indeed confusing and misleading to simply state that they refused to divulge the identity. It's confusing because it suggests that both of them simply refused to divulge the identity which while technically true, doesn't mention that one of them told the lie that it was the husband, which made sense as part of the wider lie about the involvement of the husband. It's misleading because I'm quite sure most people will assume that neither of them said anything that made any sense, i.e. neither of their testimonies added up. Whereas in fact if one of them had said it was the husband, it did add up (well that part anyway), even if it wasn't true.

Understanding why someone may have lied (since that person was claiming it was the husband, as part of their story about the husband's involvement) helps people to understand what went on in the case, and why they may have told the lies that they told. In other words, if one of them had said it was the husband this is quite pertinent to the reader's understanding of what the people said, and not mentioning this is a flaw in the article.

Note that I never said you can't call it a lie. Of course you can. Depending on the wording, this may or may not be necessary. In any case, it should be obvious to anyone reading the article that it's a lie. (Whereas just to repeat, with the proposed wording it's not at all obvious to the reader that one of them said it was the husband. I suspect many will assume neither said the logical thing i.e. that it was the husband. And in any case, they are likely to be confused.)

Since neither of them said it was the husband, and it didn't make sense in the conversation that's largely a moot point, but since the question was raised I wanted to explain.

Note that I never said it was misleading if neither of them said it was the husband. I simply said it was confusing that there was no explanation as to why they didn't say it was the husband. And I stick by that as well since as stated, from the reader's POV, the most obvious assumption would be they would say it was the husband. The fact that they didn't say it was the husband is just weird, and suggests that the they couldn't come up with a simple answer based on their own fake story. In reality, the explanation is that they couldn't say it was the husband, because this didn't make sense in the context of the conversation. But as the earlier part of the conversation isn't mentioned, the reader is just left perplexed why they couldn't come up with the most logical lie. It's also unclear to the reader that at the time of the case, it was clear even to those who believed in the husband's involvement, that there was a fifth conspirator.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems I didn't read the above explaination properly and in fact one of the people did say that the husband was the fifth conspirator, despite it not making sense in the context of the conversation. In that case, it's still misleading since as states, most people are likely to assume from the proposed wording that neither of them said it was the husband when in fact one of them did claim to divulge the identity, but falsely claimed it was the husband. More importantly than misleading is that it's confusing. Saying it was the husband makes sense as part of the claim he was involved, but doesn't explain the conversation. The other person, perhaps realising it doesn't make sense, didn't say this. We obviously can't give any OR explaination. And we don't want to go in to too much detail. But we can provide a bit more info which will help the reader understand what went on here i.e. in conversation implies there was a fifth conspirator besides the husband but one person claimed the fifth conspirator was the husband whereas the other person didn't (I assume) say who it was. This would be far better than the current wording which seems to imply no one said who it was even though based on their stories and the info revealed about this fifth conspirator it apparently should have been the husband. Nil Einne (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Last comment before I probably disappear from this talk page for good. Reading other places, it sounds like the suggestion is this was a kidnapping for ransom plot which failed. Can this be sufficiently sourced to add to the draft? As it stands, it's a bit confusing since it's not clear to the reader why they would keep Anni, nor for that matter why so many people would be involved. I.E what either the fifth or fourth conspirator were for. It would seem that the fourth just helped arrange the burglary. But this doesn't explain why it was good that there were five of them (as the conversation sort of implies)-, since only two (plus the driver who was we would presume intending to always claim to be uninvolved and therefore not to be seen to participate) were apparently involved. The fact that it may have been part of a longer kidnapping ransom plot, rather than a brief carjacking, kidnapping to burglarise then run away plot helps explain. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't disappear Nil Einne, your feedback is valuable. The suggestion that it was a kidnap and ransom plot cannot be adequately sourced nor proven, despite the evidence pointing strongly in that direction. The court could not make a definitive finding in this regard. Largely because the SA Police had failed to pursue any investigation or gather any evidence that didn't fit with their belief that Shrien Dewani was the instigator. A prison inmate named Bernard Mitchell who had been housed with Tongo, allegedly claimed that Tongo admitted the kidnap and ransom plot to him. .I agree with what you are saying about the wording. Does the below wording below make it clearer and less confusing?

An audio recording of a telephone call made at 18:38 on the night of the hijacking, from Mbolombo to Tongo provided strong proof that there was a fifth conspirator to the plot. Mbolombo is heard to say to Tongo "No, there's two of them", followed soon after by “There’s five of us, remember”. When cross examined on this point, Tongo and Mbolombo contradicted each others’ answers. Mbolombo could not explain who the fifth person was, and Tongo claimed it was the husband, but could not explain further when counsel pointed out that such an explanation made no sense in the context of the conversation. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Now find a reliable source that says that. Also, "strong proof" is not neutral language, especially when you're sourcing from primary. Frankly, I'm not seeing a good reason to mention the fifth conspirator. Bromley86 (talk) 09:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The fifth conspirator content is clearly causing some concern. I disagree with removing the reference entirely since it is an important piece of the puzzle. It has not been plucked from thin air. The phone transcript is a primary source (I think?) and the court judgement must surely be a secondary source with specific regard to that telephone call? What about if the wording were changed to read "An audio recording of a telephone call made at 18:38 on the night of the hijacking, from Mbolombo to Tongo lent credence to Shrien Dewani's defence team's theory that that there was a fifth conspirator to the crime". My understanding is that it is not prohibited to discuss theories around controversial happenings? The article on the JFK assassination being a case in point Dewanifacts (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see why you'd say that re. primary vs. secondary, but it's not that linear. Court cases are primary. Bromley86 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope. And this is not the JFK case either. The "source" for the claim is a person who repeatedly perjured himself. If he said the sun rises in the east, he would still not be a usable source for that claim either. Collect (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to partly agree with Collect. The style in which the info was given by Mbolombo strongly suggested that he was attempting to secure an extra share for himself, but obviously I can't prove that. But we keep arguing amongst ourselves when we should be discussing the sources. So what do reliable sources say concerning the defence team's pursuit of this hypothesis? (Collect, if you could avoid complaining about referencing on talk pages, that would be much appreciated - thanks!) So let's see some references and work it out from there. Cheers. Samsara 19:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I cannot agree with Collect's "old legal truism" that implies that if someone is found to be lying about one thing, then they cannot speak the truth about other things. Not only would this exclude most humans from being credible (since most humans have told lies at some stage or another), it flies directly in the face of the jury instructions commonly used in criminal judical procedure. Jurors are expressly informed that a witness who lies about one thing, should not be disbelieved about everything, although clearly their credibility is diminished markedly. Each issue should be assessed on merit. I am the first person to agree that Mbolombo, Tongo and Qwabe are as crooked as the day is long and that their word is meaningless, but this does not justify totally ignoring a significant statement such as "there's five of us", when a court found it significant enough to comment upon in the judgement. Coming back to my original question; does Wikipedia permit discussion of debatable theories relating to controversial happenings?

Samsara, I understand you asking to see sources, but one of the things that make this case notable is the fact that the usual "sources" (the media) wedded themselves to the "husband is a murderer" theory of the case within a week of the murder and were complicit in his malicious persecution. For that reason, there are virtually no media outlets that bothered to analyse and discuss the fifth conspirator issue in any great detail, as it would have been self destructive. In effect, the media had a conflict of interest and chose not to pursue the truth once they realised that they had backed the wrong horse. Does that mean that the fifth conspirator evidence should be ignored in the wikipedia article? I guess you're saying it does. That doesn't sit well with me. Perhaps I'm in the minority. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not that they "can't" tell the truth, but that they can not be claimed to be a reliable source on the exact same topic about which they have already been proven to have lied. Federal Court Jury Instructions 1.06 says a jury is allowed to discount any witnesses' testimony ("5) whether the witness is contradicted by anything the witness said or wrote before trial or by other evidence") 2.08 ("to consider “whether his testimony has been affected by his interest in maintaining his relationship with the government or by any of the benefits he has received from the government,” ") which belies your claim that such instructions are not given. While juries can not be required to disbelieve everything a perjurer testifies to, they still may do so. And the importance of being caught in one lie is whether closely related statements are apt to be lies. Now you ask whether we should discuss "truth" here - but that is the one thing we do not do - we rely on the WP:RS sources and not on our own research. Collect (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You have distorted twisted what I said, Collect. You seem to be getting yourself confused about the difference between court testimony and a criminal talking to a co-conspirator on the telephone. It is not merely liar Mbolombo's words that suggest the existence of a fifth conspirator. Mbolombo's inability to explain those words is a further pointer. As is Tongo's similar inability to explain. An even more significant corroborating point is the fact that Qwabe refused to explain why he drove into a residential area (which also happened to be close to his own home) to commit a planned execution. These are not isolated and irrelevant facts. They all serve to corroborate the theory and they were all considered pertinent enough to be highlighted in the court's judgement (which is a primary source). For the third time, I'll ask the question as to whether Wikipedia prohibits discussion of theories in cases where the happenings are shrouded in some degree of mystery? Dewanifacts (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Collect, this is not a US court case. Samsara 19:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts, you must understand that Wikipedia cannot go beyond the sources. If reliable sources have failed to adequately discuss it, then unfortunately we are bound by our policies to leave those gaps empty until such time as they are covered by such reliable sources. WP:V WP:RS WP:NOR Samsara 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

An open court's judgement is a reliable source. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, but it's not a reliable secondary source (which is what many, including myself, often mean when they say "reliable source"). Have a quick look at this summary para of WP:NOR. I'd suggest that the balance of opinion has been against including it. Bromley86 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, there was related discussion started by Collect on Jimbo Wales' talk page where JW replied that a quote from a judge should be used, so that would seem to back up DF's position. I shall, at least for now, remain explicitly neutral on questions of weight, accuracy, pertinence or other similar aspects of JW's comments in this instance - I am quite simply mentioning it FYI, nothing more. Samsara 09:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a reliable secondary source, reporting on the fifth conspirator theory put forward by the defence. 9:25am update. . I realise the Mirror isn't reknowned for highbrow journalism but its straightforward court reporting. Dewanifacts (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This can't be considered a neutral source, but one of the few insights into exactly how the Mbolombo and Tongo testimony unfolded, can be found in the defence team's heads of argument for dismissal of the case. Fifth conspirator relevant information can be found at bottom of page 84 and top of page 85. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 10:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Without performing a full audit on the source, IOL looks reliable to me.[2] Interestingly, when I read the suggested text above, I had a vague feeling that the editorial finger was being pointed at Dewani as fifth (although my understanding of the situation is that wouldn't have been the intent), whereas when I read IOL that wasn't the case. The difference was the mention in the IOL article that the fifth element was introduced by the defence. But adding more detail to such an unweighty (for want of a better word) point seems less useful than just skipping it. It's part of the defence's case, but for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, the fact that the judge dismissed the case because of the catastrophic weakness of the evidence is enough.

On a separate note, I'd be tempted to quote the judge Traverso's comments (like this & not here - in the relevant section). It shouldn't be used every time we quote someone, but the judge's comments are key in this article, and a visitor's eyes should be drawn to them. Bromley86 (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If this article was concerned wholly and solely with the trial of Shrien Dewani then your comment about the catastrophic weakness of the evidence would be a good reason to exclude mention of the fifth conspirator. However this article is not about Shrien Dewani. It is about the murder of Anni Dewani, the investigation into that murder, the judicial response to those who were convicted of involvement and those who admitted involvement, as well as any other pertinent information regarding the circumstances under which the crime occurred. The fifth conspirator is actually a crucial link in the puzzle and whilst it has not been proven unequivocally, it is singled out for mention in the court's judgement (which is a primary source), which to my mind makes it worthy of mention here. I agree that it should not be stated as absolute fact, but it can and should be stated as a theory supported by evidence. Dewanifacts (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bromley86 which Traverso comments are you referring to? Unclear from your link. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, it's the bit here that's currently italisised, starting with 'Mr. Tongo, who was the only witness who could link the accused to this conspiracy. Bromley86 (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that quote should be in the article. And it is. Both in the current Article and in the proposed draft version on this Talk page. Are you suggesting that the quote would be better placed somewhere other than the "Extradition and trial of Shrien Dewani" section? Dewanifacts (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I understand what you mean now. Have amended the style of the quote in the proposed draft. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the debate over if and how to reference the fifth conspirator, is everyone happy with the rest of the proposed redraft of the article? If no objections, then someone needs to lift the content of the proposed redraft and replace the current Article. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy it over. I was reviewing the article and had finished Background, so I'll leave that as is, but we might as well work from the newer suggested text than the old article. I'll also leave out the Fifth Conspirator part. Any objections, just revert it and we can chat here. Bromley86 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite sure what you have done. It appears the lede has not been copied from the proposed new draft? Also I think we had uncontested consensus that the Shrien Dewani "background" paragraph should be deleted as it is irrelevant to the topic. Its not in the proposed draft. Have you maybe used a previous version of the proposed draft? Dewanifacts (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DF. I just copied everything from Robbery, kidnapping and murder in the collapsed draft above, then fixed the broken refs. I didn't copy the Lead as I'd already reviewed the current one.

Likewise, I left the background section as it was because I'd already been through it. Happy to have the Shrein sub-section removed; I'll do it now. Could you point me to that consensus, as this talk page is a bit hard to scan. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

BBC Panorama implied notion

Article draft currently states about the content of the BBC programme, In addition, while Tongo's supposed cut of the fee for the killing was between only a half and third of his usual monthly salary, the two gunmen made substantially more from the theft of the Dewanis' belongings than the value of the "contract".

I find it unfortunate to imply that the hijackers could have known in advance the value of what the Dewanis carried that evening - was that really implied in this way, in the programme? And was it very central to the programme, or could it be omitted in the re-telling? Samsara 08:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would not make any inferences based on such - IIRC, "fences" do not pay "full original cost" for stolen goods, as a rule. Was there a cite for the net amount received for the stolen goods by the murderers? Collect (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Shrien's bio paragraph

Extended content

Shrien Dewani is a British Asian; his father emigrated to the United Kingdom from Kenya and his mother from Uganda. He was raised in Bristol, attending Bristol Grammar School, before studying Economics at the University of Manchester. After graduating, he moved to London, where he qualified as a chartered accountant with Deloitte. In 2005 he left Deloitte join the family healthcare business, which runs nursing homes in South West England and Wales. References

Just recording that I removed the basic bio paragraph on Shrien (collapsed above), which is what the editors that commented on it (Dewanifacts and Collect) wanted. Bromley86 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed redraft - move into article?

(Apologies to Dewanifacts for moving his comments to this new section. Just trying to make the page clearer. Bromley86 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC))

Aside from the debate over if and how to reference the fifth conspirator, is everyone happy with the rest of the proposed redraft of the article? If no objections, then someone needs to lift the content of the proposed redraft and replace the current Article. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy it over. I was reviewing the article and had finished Background, so I'll leave that as is, but we might as well work from the newer suggested text than the old article. I'll also leave out the Fifth Conspirator part. Any objections, just revert it and we can chat here. Bromley86 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not quite sure what you have done. It appears the lede has not been copied from the proposed new draft? Also I think we had uncontested consensus that the Shrien Dewani "background" paragraph should be deleted as it is irrelevant to the topic. Its not in the proposed draft. Have you maybe used a previous version of the proposed draft? Dewanifacts (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi DF. I just copied everything from Robbery, kidnapping and murder in the collapsed draft above, then fixed the broken refs. I didn't copy the Lead as I'd already reviewed the current one.

Likewise, I left the background section as it was because I'd already been through it. Happy to have the Shrien sub-section removed; I'll do it now. Could you point me to that consensus, as this talk page is a bit hard to scan. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok understood. The lede in its current form is almost right but does not explain why the prosecutors went down the path of blaming the husband. I suggest that the second paragraph begins with the sentence as per proposed draft: "Based on the later discredited confessions of three of the crime's perpetrators, South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that Anni 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." Dewanifacts (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to point to a specific chunk of text but it appears a few comments below the start of the "Discussion" section on the proposed redraft. Collect suggest a number of changes which I enacted, and since there was no opposition or suggestion that Shrien Dewani's background, place of work etc was relevant, it appears that there was consensus that the information added nothing to the article other than to place private details of his life in the public domain. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I made the Lead change you suggested. Bromley86 (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, in copying over the text, I didn't mean to imply it's a finished version. However, just the fact that it deals with the acquittal of Dewani makes it better than what we had before. Bromley86 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Constant use of first name

This article shows far too much familiarity with the subject by the constant use of her first name to identify her throughout the article. This is unencyclopedic and unprofessional, and needs to be modified. per the MOS: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms", or by a pronoun." I will start addressing this shortly. Scr★pIron^IV 15:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that two of the major figures in this share that surname, so further disambiguation may be necessary. Samsara 16:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I was careful to ensure that when there could be confusion, I left the first name to disambiguate. Scr★pIron^IV 17:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors bullying and reverting edits for improper reasons

BMK has reverted a completely benign edit made by myself on the Article, with the sole given reason being "SPA". As has already been discussed in the "User:Dewanifacts" section of this very Talk page, such behaviour by BMK constitutes bullying, intimidation, edit warring and does not conform with Wikipedia policy. An SPA or someone with a COI is not prohibited from making edits, and other editors are not permitted to revert edits solely on the basis of someone being an SPA with a COI. Someone else can now please reinstate the changes I made as I will not be drawn into an edit war. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK has been warned. Samsara 15:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK has been quite clear from the beginning that he would revert any edit directly made to the article by Dewanifacts, an SPA editor with a declared COI, so the "warning" was quite unwarranted. Any editor without a COI is welcome to restore any edit of Dewanifacts' that I revert. BMK (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK : You never had any right to declare such an intent. You are blatantly intimidating and bullying me. There is no rule or policy that precludes an SPA with COI from making edits. You are trying to rationalise your hostile bullying by using Wikipedia jargon that doesn't in any way sanction or excuse your actions. If my edits are controversial then they can be reverted just like any other person's edits. However to revert them purely on the basis that they were made by an SPA is unacceptable bullying behaviour. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I do have the right, has does every other Wikipedia editor, and I have stated above the policies which support that contention. You, on the other hand, as a single-purpose account with a declared conflict of interest on this subject -- indeed with a "mission" to carry out -- have no "right" to edit the article, as your edits have been found to be pushing a specific point of view, in violation of WP:NPOV. This is all ground that's been well covered, so I'm not going to go through it again.

FYI, I have formally warned admin Samsara that because they have been an active participant in discussions here about changes to be made to the article, they are, by definition, WP:INVOLVED, and are therefore restricted from taking any admin actions in connection with it. Of course, if any uninvolved admin agrees that my edits are disruptive, they are free to take whatever action they deem necessary - hopefully while taking into account the policy basis for the edits that I outlined above.

Of course, as long as you restrict yourself to discussion here, and do not make any edit to the article directly, there won't be any additional issues for an admin to be concerned about. Since you're pretty much getting what you want, I fail to see the value on your part in "stirring the pot" by editing directly instead of discussing your proposed change here and getting another editor to implement it. BMK (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting that others are "stirring the pot" is not helpful given the initiative you took today. Samsara 17:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BMK Just because you say something, does not make it so. You do not have the right to revert my edits based on the fact that I am a SPA. It is as simple as that. No wikipedia policy gives you this right, and no wikipedia policy precludes a SPA from making edits. If and only if there was such a policy, would your actions be justifiable. Whether I really have a COI is actually a point for discussion. I am not in any way related to any of the protagonists, nor do I have anything to gain from any particular view being put forward. I am merely someone who took an interest in this case, know more about it than most people and am in a good position to assist in building a better encyclopaedic record of the events within. As other admins have noted, I have gone out of my way to contribute to this article with strict adherence to WP:NPOV and this Talk page is testament to the fact that I have sought to discuss and reach consensus on all significant edits before making them. The edit I made this morning was very minor and improved readibility and understanding. You had no reason to revert it, other than your self declared intent to revert any edit that I make if I haven't first sought approval on the Talk page. You are attempting to enforce a rule that does not exist. I suggest you stand your bullying behaviour down and act in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. Dewanifacts (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm neither uninvolved, nor an admin. I also see where BMK is coming from, as Dewanifacts is clearly a SPA with a confessed position to advance. I'd just like to note that DF's recent edits appear to have been mindful of this situation; he's put through very minor copy edit changes himself, but has taken the rest to Talk and waited for others to make the changes. It's also worth noting that DF's POV dovetails with BLP, as Shrien has been found not guilty by the court. Bromley86 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)