Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Recent edits to the trial section

Zlykinskyja, your comments above are phrased as though you believe people are being hostile towards you because of your opinions about the article's subject. I don't believe that is true: in fact Wikipedia editors are generally very tolerant and quite respectful of views that differ from their own. What does upset editors is a continual stream of personal attacks (and in my case I am absolutely sick of it and intend to take the matter wherever necessary to make sure it stops). But when it comes to considering your views on this section, I don't think people are ignoring them because, frankly, you haven't told us what they are! The need to improve the section was first discussed in Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_13#Knox.2FSollecito_trial. There you attacked me for writing in a "highly POV manner" and being "anti-Knox" and essential said that you thought me an unsuitable person to write this section. However, you did not give us your views on how the section could be improved other than some generalities about things like "not painting A and R solely as guilty". There was a further discussion at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Knox.2FSollecito_trial_again which you didn't contribute to. It was discussed again at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Courtroom_events_yet_again and once again you did not contribute to the discussion. When, as a result of all these sections, a consensus was reached (of the people who chose to contribute) you then started editing the text and, when reverted, began further accusations against myself and other editors. But you still haven't given us your views about the contents of the section other than in the most general terms! If you truly care about what is said in this section, I suggest you re-open the discussion about the content (here on the talk page) and tell us what you think is wrong with the section (not the editors), why you think it needs improving and what your suggested improvements are. And please do that without resorting to nasty personal attacks. If you do that, you will probably find that editors are prepared to discuss your issues and you might even find common ground that could lead to a consensus. If that does not work and you really find that editors are hostile to your suggestions, you might have the basis for a case for mediation or arbitration. Bluewave (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is needed for the overall situation, not just the dispute over this one section. The problem is far more general and long term than this one section. The problem is not rooted in personal disputes, the problem is rooted in the fact that in the real world there are two hard and fast camps on this bitterly contested murder case (as reflected all over the Internet and in the international media), and those two points of view are showing up in the editing of this article. At this point, I am the only one left on the other side, which places me in a difficult situation. In terms of my comments on this particular section, well, take the material that I tried to include as my comment. I tried to add an overview section and it took me a lot of time to find all the cites. I intended to add more material but what I added was deleted so all that time and effort is now wasted. What I tried to add was well sourced. I had multiple cites for each element, except for one. I did not delete anything you wrote. I only tried to add to what you wrote. What I added was legitimate, but you just deleted it all. There was a comment made by you or someone that the info on the gun was "opinion" but that was the defense attorneys' opinion, so it was legit to include in the section on the arguments of the defense counsel. All of the defense arguments as well as the prosecution arguments could fall in the category of "opinion" until proven as fact. In terms of Sollecito, I had planned to do more, but after my material on Knox was deleted, there did not seem to be any point in trying to do that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja, you say "take the material that I tried to include as my comment". Unfortunately that approach does not work well for a contentious article. If we all simply express our opinions as edits to the article, we end up in an an edit war, with someone adding something because they think it important, and someone else deleting it because they disagree. By dealing with the issues on the tak page, rather than the article itself, we stand a chance of achieving consensus. And, if we can't reach consensus, we will at least know exactly what issues need mediating. Bluewave (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be a consideration of the Wiki policy that everyone should be able to contribute to an article. No one group or person can control the article by requiring "approval" on the Talk page first. That is my understanding of the policy. I could be wrong, but I think that is what the policy is. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I came across material recently which said that requiring users to get approval first on the Talk page before adding material was not allowed, and there was a reference to the Wiki Supreme Court (Arbitration Committee) holding that such a requirement can be construed as "disruptive editing". I will see if I can find that again, but it would help if others could check out the policy on this in case I can't find it again. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right that anyone can contribute to an article: anyone can add what they like and anyone can delete what they like. That kind of "free for all" works most of the time. However, in a contentious article, where a lot of people have one view and one person has a different view, the minority person is likely to get "out-edited" by the majority. That's what tends to happen in a free-for-all. You are not required to get approval for your edits and other people are not required to get approval for deleting them. When I suggest dealing with the issues on the talk page, I am not quoting policy, I am actually trying to make a helpful suggestion. The suggestion is that if you discuss your issues, there is more chance that you will get people on your side. If you get people on your side, they are less likely to delete your edits or change them out of all recognition. Wikipedia does work by consensus and I'm sure that must be a policy, though I can't quote it. Bluewave (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Many who commit vandalism all believe they "are not required to get approval for deleting" so that's why Wikipedia policies specifically reject deletion as a self-righteous action - deletion is a form of VANDALISM. Unilateral deletion is almost always a severe policy violation: it is a VIOLATION OF POLICY to delete text per WP:BLP; it is a VIOLATION OF POLICY to delete text per WP:NOTCENSORED; it is a VIOLATION OF POLICY to delete text per WP:CONSENSUS; it is a VIOLATION OF POLICY to delete text per WP:AfD: deleting articles requires consensus. No one can blank an article and then claim the text could be re-added by consensus. WRONG!!! What part of "don't delete without consensus" do you fail to comprehend??? Continually denying these long-term policies is an outrageous waste of people's valuable time. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Not commenting on the rest of what I see as a misinterpretation of policies from your side, marking or even calling good faith edits (which includes deletions) as "vandalism is a wp:ABF approach.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
And please see wp:BRD. That should help you regarding the basics of your question.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You two have shown your bias, there's no way you should be involved in editing this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I tawt I taw a twoll. I did! I did taw a twoll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvio giuliano (talkcontribs) 22:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone that makes this post cannot possibly claim to not have a POV and has no business editing a wikipedia article. I have no intention of quitting. I smell victory in this case, which is going to make this article all the more interesting to write. I think this is going to turn into a HUGE story. HUGE. I predict that this story is will go down in history as one of the clearest examples of the conviction of innocent people based on prejudicial pre-trial publicity. The "trial by tabloid" of the "she-devil" the "Luciferna" the "promiscuous American" with the "eyes of a killer"--who turned out to be totally innocent. I predict that in the long run this is what this case will stand for. It will be a story that you can tell your grandchildren about someday in the future. Hang in there! Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC) It's ludicrous that's she asking for mediation. She should do the proper thing and try to let people who have no POV edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that we all have our point of view, as far as any given subject is concerned; the point is that we should try not to show it when we write an article. But it's impossible, in my opinion, to require that only people with absolutely no POV whatsoever can edit an article: such people are merely not interested in the subject (for instance, I have no POV at all as far as Jayant Kaikini is concerned, but that's probably due to the fact that, before I clicked on the random article button, I was totally unaware of his existence...)... Salvio giuliano (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (with Salvio). Also, we are all capable of going and reading what is on people's talk pages, if we so choose, without the need for someone to copy it all here. PS I'm not sure it's wise to bring up the subject of Jayant Kaikini...look what happened when someone mentioned Linda Carty :-) Bluewave (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
XD. Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mediation proposal

Zlykinskyja, continuing the discussion of your proposal for mediation from here, where you said that you would need to put some time into the research and preparation, since you have never done something like this on Wiki before. Rather than put a huge amount of effort into something, why not summarise the points here in 2 or 3 sentences. Then you can find out the degree of support that you can count on, at an early stage. Also, if it is something, that people are enthusiastic about, you may get some help from experienced editors (I don't know if anyone has been involved in one of these before) to put together a full proposal. Also I have a sneaking suspicion that, if the exact concerns were summarised in a couple of sentences, they might be resolvably without mediation, but I'll keep my mind open on this! Bluewave (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bluewave, I do wish to discuss this with you but I will need to put this discussion on hold. My area has been having a big storm and now we are having flooding. I will get back to you when I can. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to hear about the storms. I hope you are not too affected by the flooding. Wikipedia can wait! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

General remark about (matching) sourcing

This edit by Footwarrior as an example of many: We have to be careful in our edits as to match the source(s) given and add or repeat a source for any controversial or potentially disputed addition.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged mistreatment by police

Footwarrior removed statement about Amanda not being able to identify policewomen who hit her at trail, for this was not supported by any of the cited references, but here you can read

But Prosecutor Mignini doesn’t believe Amanda’s story of physical abuse. He tries to undermine her by asking a simple question: "Who hit you?"

“I didn’t see who gave me the first slap because it came from behind. And then I turned around and I saw the woman and then another slap to my head.”
But Amanda couldn’t identify her attacker.
“Have you finished or do you want to keep going?” asks Mignini.
“I’ve answered, haven’t I?” says Amanda.

Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I was just about placing a comment on your talk page and then saw this (which is basically a response to my none posted post mentioned). Although I somehow could agree to your summary in the article, I definitely think a more closer to the source approach would be the way to go. the trial is not mentioned in the source so let's leave it out unless it was brought up there and can be sourced. So, let's just add what the source is providing. Agreed?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem there: I had not actually realized there was no mention of this occurring at trial in the article (I watched the video and I saw Mignini asking Amanda that question; he was wearing his robe, so I just assumed it was at trial). But I can see how that could be construed as WP:OR... Salvio giuliano (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • In Amanda's testimony on June 12, 2009 she described her attacker but didn't know her name. If we had a good link to the trail testimony, we could state this in the article. But without such a link, I didn't want to add an assertion of fact to the article. The part I removed was however clearly misleading. Footwarrior (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
AK: Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don't know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting "Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?" Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn't see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
GCM: This was the same woman with the long hair?
AK: Yes, the same one.
  • Does anyone have a good link to Amanda's testimony?Footwarrior (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The BBC reported "Knox has said she was unable to identify the officers who hit her".[1] Bluewave (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is here, 32:20 through 33:00. Salvio giuliano (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Update:

  • An American university student on trial for the murder of a British student in Italy told a court on Saturday she could not identify the police woman she said had struck her during an interrogation. [2] Salvio giuliano (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Reuters reference quotes Amanda as saying "I don't know the name of the police woman who did it". So if we put "Amanda could not identify her attacker" back in the article, it's a bit like saying a rape victim couldn't identify her attacker in a police lineup because she only pointed to him and didn't know his name. Footwarrior (talk)
The whole transcript is here[3] but it is a blog, so probably not admissable here! Bluewave (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's not a RS. Would be helpful to have a link to an official transcript, so.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Preferred translated into English of course.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete without consensus

15-March-2010: Many who commit vandalism all believe they "are not required to get approval for deleting" so that's why Wikipedia policies specifically reject deletion as a self-righteous action - unilateral deletion is a form of vandalism. Unilateral deletion is almost always a severe policy violation: it is a violation of policy to delete text per WP:BLP; it is a violation of policy to delete text per WP:NOTCENSORED; it is a violation of policy to delete text per WP:CONSENSUS; it is a violation of policy to delete text per WP:AfD: deleting articles requires consensus. No one can blank an article and then claim the text could be re-added by consensus. Wrong!!! The very nature of the WP:AfD process is to require consensus. What part of "don't delete without consensus" do you fail to comprehend??? Continually denying these long-term policies is an outrageous waste of people's valuable time. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Edited the above to remove shouting. User:LeadSongDog come howl 18:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
And here you make another broad and clear accusation of "vandalism" and not wp:ABF which is an personal attack on several editors and violation WP policy. Remember your block-log although it was long time ago but you violated it as recent as last December. Want a link? Just ask me and I'll give it to you.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
And my thanks to LeadSongDog for his edit.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like I have been mistaken in the way I have been editing Wikipedia for the last four and a half years. I have been working on the asumption that I could add or delete material whenever I genuinely thought that such an edit would make an improvement to an article and provided it didn't contravene any existing consensus. Am I to understand that I need to get approval before I ever delete anything? So, if a see an article that I think could be improved by deleting a few words, whose approval should I seek before making my planned edit? Bluewave (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's really very easy to request consensus: simply seek consensus with the author of that text, in accordance with WP policies. Typically, if the author of a block of text agrees with you, then it's very likely to become a smooth change. It's not as though "wiki-consensus" is the unanimous agreement of 300,000 active Wikipedia editors: it isn't. Likewise, getting 5 other people to agree but being violently opposed by the author is NOT consensus. Finally, getting 20 people to agree, with no opposition for a week, while violating a policy, is NOT a wiki-consensus. Consensus should not violate policies. If you suspect that you have consensus for a small deletion (not a whole paragraph), you might try removing that text, but when the original author objects, then restore that text immediately, and note: many editors would expect that restoration of text to be done by the person deleting. Many people take a "5-word deletion" freedom to extremes, by editing an article 100x times and removing 5 words each time. Such actions violate the spirit of consensus. In contrast, unless the text is being debated, you do not need consensus to add balanced text to an article (while not violating WP content policies), so feel free to add a paragraph without consensus (unless debating that section).
    Now, if explaining edit-consensus to youngsters, try a "cookie jar" analogy: when visiting someone's house, they might open the cookie jar and remove a cookie, but if they remove 100 cookies, or open the jar 100x times, then that would be considered as very rude; also, bringing a new pack of cookies and adding some to the jar is typically okay; however, it would be incorrect to put non-cookies in the jar (such as adding sandwiches, a bagel, or Mountain Dew into the cookie jar). Just because there are no "cookie-jar police" (in the room) does not excuse rude behaviour. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion is a last resort

In many articles, not just this one, some people have frequently deleted sections of text, as though such actions were considered acceptable, simply because they, individually, did not like the wording, and hence deleted the text with no prior consensus. The following excerpt, from Wikipedia policy WP:BLP, continually emphasizes that the proper action is for text to be "improved and rectified" but only if that is "not possible, then it should be removed" (see full wording below):

"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy (WP:BLP) should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion."
"Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion."

Again, the policy indicates that non-compliant text should be "improved" and only if that is "not possible" then text could be removed. Note how discussions are the stipulated process, rather than "summary deletion" of text. Old habits are hard to break, and as of yet, no one is required to pass a wiki-policy comprehension test before editing articles. As a result, many people imagine they can delete whatever text they wish, even though such actions violate policy. -Wikid77 10:49, 16 March 2010

You might also read Help:Introduction_to_policies_and_guidelines/Conduct which says "if you see something that can be improved, improve it, and do not be overly concerned with breaking anything. If the change is in the spirit of improvement and makes sense to others, the odds are good that everything will turn out alright and the change will be kept. Being civil and assuming good faith is a mainstay on Wikipedia. Editors typically reach consensus (policy) as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. Being reverted may feel a bit deflating, but do not take offense, as it is a common step in finding consensus." I think the majority of editors have taken this approach on this page. This doesn't say that improving an article as only achieved by adding material and never deleting it. Indeed, it says that reverting material [which might include deleting] is a common step in finding consensus. MCk has also pointed us to the "BRD" process in an earlier discussion. This too assumes that a person adds their proposed material and someone else reverts (and therefore deletes) it. This then forms the basis for starting a discussion on the talk page. Bluewave (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And sometimes ignoring all rules while using common sense in conjunction with consensus should be used to improve an article.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to use first names

Due to privacy concerns, as per policy WP:BLP, we have been trying to use only the first names and initials of the other people involved. The 4 suspects have been listed with first and last names: I don't see the need to specify full middle names. So, the following are involved:

  • Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede - suspects
  • Patrick Lumumba - former suspect
  • Filomena R. & Laura M. - Italian housemates
  • Paola G., Luca A. & Marco Z. - friends/witnesses at the murder scene
  • Nara C. - witness, neighbour
  • Antonio C. - witness, homeless man at Piazza Grimana square
  • Hekuran K. - witness, Albanian claiming drove "dark car" near house

Remember, if they do find "the real killer" (who confesses none of the others were involved), then we don't want to be posting the suspects middle names in this article. Please feel free to list others in the names above. Again, let's remove last, middle or maiden names from the article. Are there any objections to using those names above? -Wikid77 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

First name only should be for witness, friends and family. The names of people involved professionally in this case (i.e. lawyers, prosecutors, judges, journalists, politicians etc.) should not be shortened. Footwarrior (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There was an earlier proposal to get rid of the names of people not directly connected with the case. Do we actually need to name people like Filomena R or Nara C? Can't we just refer to "a housemate" or "a neighbour"? Certainly, just using their first names doesn't look very encyclopedic. Bluewave (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There were 2 roommates and several neighbours who testified, so they cannot be identified as merely "a roommate" or "a neighbour" to indicate a specific source, per WP:WEASEL ("claimed by a roommate" which one?) -Wikid77
I don't really think this is about weasel words. There are lots of examples of these in newspapers ("a witness said that..." and similar stuff). However, here we are (presumably) talking about cases where the cited source makes it clear who made the statement, where and when, so it is not really a weasel word. Wikipedia:SURNAME#Subsequent_uses_of_names says to use the surname, rather than the first name. Personally I would, in the interests of privacy, get rid of all the names of witnesses and accept some slight ambiguity in the article. But it's not a big issue and I'll go with any consensus on this. Bluewave (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Pizza w/o mushrooms

Can some one verify this with a citation and put it in context (in case there is any importance to it)? As it stands now readers would just scratch their ears and wondering what that is all about as there is no connection made whatsoever.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "significance" if it is such, is that the autopsy showed that Meredith had eaten mushrooms shortly before her murder and the food she ate with friends, earlier in the evening didn't include mushrooms. I don't think it has had any significance in the investigation and trials, though maybe someone can find some cites to prove me wrong on this. I think it is of potential significance to anyone who wants to make up their own explanation of what happened on the night of the murder and would like to use the Wikipedia article as a way of publishing their theory (never mind the "lone wolf", what about the "murderous musroom seller"?) But, as you say, the onus is on someone who wants to keep it to come with a citation for its significance. Bluewave (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If that has some significance, the person adding it should explain it, including the sources that say it's significant. Like this, its the epitome of useless non-information. I guess there wasn't any honey or strawberries on the pizza either. Deleted, together with some serious overlinking. Averell (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It sounded like she might have died from mushroom poisoning before or after the stabbing. I left it in and started that "silly" section to make sure I don't delete a "major finding" in this case which turned out to be nothing more like "pizza toppings didn't include mushrooms, anchovies, pepper, etc.. Sure, a pizza w/o cheese would be worth to mention (at the Italian WP article :) ). Right? Disclaimer: "Sarcasm intended for improvement of the article". The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"murderous musroom seller" Thanks to the three of you: you made laugh really hard. XD Salvio giuliano (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

unneeded ranslations into Italian in article

There are translations from English to Italian which don't add any understanding for readers that were removed by me and others but are reinstated soon after. The ones still in there are "...a beige woman's handbag of imitation leather (Italian: una borsa da donna in similpelle)." and "...and 3 floormarks with blood "signs of concentric circles" (Italian: segni circolari concentrici)" in the "Details of Kercher's room" section. They violate Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and common sense. Can we agree here and put it to rest by removing such edits or do editors feel different about it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In these cases, the original source was (I think) Italian. I think it was the Micheli report. I can see there would be value in including the original language if there was a possibility of ambiguity in translating into English. However, in these cases, the translation is pretty much word-for-word from one language to the other, so I can't see much point in including the original language version. Bluewave (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The translation is not actually word-for-word, due to a choice of synonyms: the Italian phrase "segni di cerchi concentrici" could have been used for "signs of concentric circles" (actual Italian phrase: segni circolari concentrici); likewise, a handbag might be termed, in Italian, borsetta rather than a borsa da donna as used in the source document. -Wikid77 15:29, 18 March 2010
  • The English traslation is accurate and not misleading. That's all that matters for us and the readers.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
That's one and the major point in my reasoning. If translated words would not have the exactly same meaning as in the foreign language it would make sense to include the original together with an explanation of how those words are distinguished to the English meaning, which in this case is not the case at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The words, like they were put here, mean nothing, no matter the language. Even if it is mentioned in the report, it serves no purpose putting it here without giving any context. As for the "please give me time" argument - the author has all the time in the world. Take your time, and re-add this thing only 'after you are able to show a compelling reason to do so.
It boggles my mind that this even has to be discussed; and after seeing it re-added three times I'm not surprised about the sorry state that this article is in, bristling with irrelevance. Sigh. That's why I try to keep away from here more often than not, I have better things to waste my time and sanity on than what is going on on this talk page. Averell (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In handling a subject written in 2 languages, it is customary to identify specific phrases in the other language. This article is about describing a stabbing murder and theft, so that's why blood on her handbag and blood shoe-prints on the floor are described (for more about how murder investigations are conducted, see: Forensics). -Wikid77 15:29, 18 March 2010
You're right! Any ideas about how best to go about removing all that irrelevant detail? We can't give this much discussion to every one of them. One option would be for various people to do draft rewrites of each of the sections, discuss these on the talk page and then replace them in the article. This is what I was doing with the courtroom events section, but it only works if the people who disagree are prepared to argue their case on the talk page and seek consensus. Bluewave (talk) 12:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Those 2 phrases (total of 9 words) tie the text directly into the source document (of more than 10,000 words). What boggles the mind is that some people feel the need to delete 9 words (count them, nine) that tie the text to a source document, which describes blood in 2 major locations: on the handbag where money was missing, and blood as telltale shoe-prints on the floor. I don't see a reason that those 9 small words would require deletion. They identify the specific source text. -Wikid77, 15:29, 18 March 2010
  • Nobody said that the English part should be taken out. Even the section title makes it clear that it is only about the translation into Italian which seems to be seen as unneeded clutter not only by myself. Please read to it again before posting comments out of context.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If the intent of including the Italian words is to help people find track down the source in a long document, may I suggest referencing a specific page in the document instead? Footwarrior (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That would not only make sense but very useful considering having a foreign language ref of, uhm, how many pages? So splitting up this "main" ref by linking to the specific page (within the ref as a footnote where to find this info) would make perfectly sense and would be a major improvement of the article and therefore for the reader; And for editors too.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That source webpage for the Micheli Report (http://www.penale.it/page.asp?mode=1&IDPag=750) is a single mass of text in a webpage of 351kb (equivalent to about 102 pages of text) but as one solid page with 450 paragraphs (similar to a page 23 metres or 75 ft tall). Hence, the easiest way to navigate is by text-search of phrases (such as "segni circolari concentrici" ). Perhaps if that were stated in the footnote then the use of Italian phrases might seem more obvious. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Civil cases — balance

The new material on Knox's civil action against Corriere della Sera looks disproportionate (to me at least) for two reasons. Firstly, it now makes up a large part of the section on media coverage, which is now grossly unbalanced. Secondly, it is considerably more than the coverage of the Lumumba civil action which, again, leads to an imbalance. What do other people think? PS does this mean that Amanda can now afford to pay the money she owes to Patrick Lumumba? Bluewave (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand what's wrong with TMC-k's version:

Amanda Knox won a lawsuit for invasion of privacy against an Italian media company who published excerpts in a book and several articles from personal notebooks confiscated by Perugian police and journalist Fiorenza Sarzanini somehow gained access to. Knox was awarded $55,000 by an Italian court.[1]

I think it is ok: informative, balanced and not overly verbous... Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that looks consistent with the way the other civil lawsuits have been described and would therefore address the issue of balance that I raised. Bluewave (talk) 20:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

From bad to worse

This section is extremely POV:

  • Copies of the diary and notebooks were somehow turned over to a journalist despite the case being "sealed."
  • The book included lurid details purporting to be about Knox's alleged sex life
  • According to her lawyers, the book was part of a "smear campaign' against Knox, focusing on her alleged sexual obsessions.
  • According to Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, the verdict in Knox's favor is further proof that the jury in the criminal case--in which she was convicted of sexual assault and other charges--was negatively influenced by prejudicial publicity against her, and that the prosecution's characterization of her was "completely wrong"

And it gives way too much undue weight to opinions by the family (old stuff, already presented in the article) and by her lawyers. Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved it to an approbriate existing section, yet, the POV issue still has to be solved. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd have put it in the Civil actions section, actually; but, then it would look unbalanced, compared to Lumumba's action... Salvio giuliano (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. That's where I intended to place it for now.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is no way this text should be in the forensics section. That makes no sense at all. Nor does it make any sense to include a totally different lawsuit BY Knox inside a section on verdicts AGAINST Knox by parties other than the journalist who lost. Burying the text like that on a brand new development in the case does a disservice to the reader.

I also want to make clear that I thought the template applied to the forensics section only, and that this text simply had no connection at all to the forensics section whatsoever. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Salvio: The victory by Knox is itself POV. Her POV was finally adopted by a court. The text correctly describes what the dispute was about---she claimed that she had been wronged by the journalist and she won. The journalist may have a different view but there is not much info about the journalist's view in reliable sources, at least not that I could find. At one point the author's defense was that the diaries were 'evidence' in the trial. But that turned out to be an incorrect prediction--the diaries never were admitted into the trial. So the journalist lost the case. Presenting a win for Knox is not POV. In the overall context of the article, which is so negative to her, adding info on a little victory for her provides NPOV to the article. If all her losses can be discussed, so can a minor victory for her. Also, this could turn out to be major info if it plays a role in the appeal. If the Knox lawyer's appeal on the basis of prejudicial pre-trial publicity, then this seemingly minor victory could play a major role later in the case, and the reader should be informed about this. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • As for the imbalance in my new section compared to the sections on the Kercher and Lumumba's suits, well the answer is to add more text to those sections. They are very skimpy. But that does not mean that because I put the time, effort and work into one brand new section and other parts have not been worked on much, that my new section should be deleted or reduced. Also, by just now breaking the two other suits into two separate sections, you are emphasizing an imbalance that was not apparent before. None of this justifies deleting my work, my time and effort, as is being done over and over and over and over, resulting increasingly in only one POV being allowed. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Quote:"... by just now breaking the two other suits into two separate sections, you are emphasizing an imbalance that was not apparent before."
So "emphasizing" your newly written section gives balance but applying the same standard to the other two is POV? I find that quite amazing if not amusing.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

POV issues

  • were somehow turned over [...] despite the case being "sealed." → you imply something fishy went on; do you have any evidence to support your claim?
  • The book included lurid details purporting to be about Knox's alleged sex life → does it really have to be this picturesque? Could it not read "the book included intimate details, professing to be about Knox's sex life".
  • According to her lawyers, the book was part of a "smear campaign' against Knox, focusing on her alleged sexual obsessions. → It has already been said over and over; does it have to be repeated?
  • According to Knox's Italian lawyer, Carlo dalla Vedova, the verdict in Knox's favor is further proof that the jury in the criminal case--in which she was convicted of sexual assault and other charges--was negatively influenced by prejudicial publicity against her, and that the prosecution's characterization of her was "completely wrong" → Again, this is merely a repetition with different words of the same concept. And it apparently seems to aim at delegitimizing the Court of Assizes and its verdict.
  • Knox family stated: "This seems to be yet another example of the continued leaks designed to harm Amanda's character as there is no evidence to tie her to the brutal and senseless murder of Meredith Kercher. She is innocent. → Is there really the need to repeat Knox family's stance on the issue? It has been iterated over and over again.

The section deals with an important new detail: a journalist has been convicted for writing a book that has been considered defamatory; ok. But as it is now, it is just a miscellany of quotations that, under the pretence of commenting the verdict, spread further doubt about the Court of Assizes' actions. Salvio giuliano (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed (with Salvio). Of course we should include a summary of the civil case, but this does look like an excuse to soapbox the Knox family's POV. I disagree with Zlykinskyja's comment above that "the victory by Knox is itself POV"...it's not POV, it's a fact. But it is a victory in getting damages for the publication of a private diary. It has absolutely no bearing on the evidence presented at the criminal trial. Bluewave (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The section obviously can be improved upon. But it is brand new and needs a little time to ripen and further work. But it is impossible to do that work while repeated attempts are made to delete the entire text or water it down to something meaningless. All I was trying to do here was to add "breaking news" on a victory for Amanda that a whole lot of people would be interested in. For that simple attempt, hours and hours of my time have been taken up and I have been met with further obstructions. Why not allow some time for the material to be improved upon instead of rushing to delete and challenge? Is this really an EMERGENCY? I will do some further research to refine the material and provide additional cites which back up the "lurid" claims, the "sealed" claims, the "leaking" claims, ect., ect. I will try to get that updated as soon as I can after the weekend, hopefully. BTW, it is premature to say this victory has "no bearing" on the criminal trial. According to her lawyer, the issue of pre-trial publicity DID have a bearing on the verdict. They spoke of "character assasination" So it is entirely possible this issue of publicity, and the new victory, could play a role in the appealZlykinskyja (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, providing sources for these claims is not really the point; they would still be way too POV to be allowed in a wiki article, in my opinion. Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Consider that this type of damaging pre-trial publicity would not even be possible in England or Canada. In the U.S., there have also been cases where extensive pre-trial publicity caused the court to overturn the verdict. There is a major issue in this case concerning pre-trial publicity, and it should not be glossed over or diminished in importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talkcontribs) 20:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It never happens. Pre-trial publicity may cause a case to be moved, or for the jury to be sequestered, but verdicts are not being overturned. If you can cite one case in recent history I'd be shocked.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talkcontribs)

Any source for any of your claims?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello IP----A leading case is the Supreme Court ruling in the Dr. Sam Shepard case. The verdict was overturned in that case. While there may not be a ton of cases, the lower courts will follow the cautions of the Supreme Court set forth in that case, which is still good law. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fiorenza Sarzanini....he had no right..." are you sure he is a man? http://archivio.festivaldelgiornalismo.com/festivaldelgiornalismo.php?article501

"a book" at least provide the book title and ISBN number :Amanda e gli altri. Vite perdute intorno al delitto di Perugia ISBN 45262180 http://bompiani.rcslibri.corriere.it/bompiani/libro/6218_amanda_e_gli_altri_vite_perdut_sarzanini.html Kwenchin (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

'Foxy Knoxy'

A comment about the absence of Knox's nickname from the article has just been removed, correctly, as it should have been put here. This prompted me to check, and indeed, there is no mention of it, except in the footnotes, where it appears nine times. As I recall, it originated as a (self?) reference to her footballing skills. Perhaps this mention should be reinstated, maybe in another footnote, since it seems there is no escaping 'Foxy' outside WP. Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this line to the Amanda Knox section: Media reports often referred to Knox as "Foxy Knoxy", a nickname she had been given for skills on the football pitch as a child.[4]Footwarrior (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference: done. Rothorpe (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Was Alessi a "cellmate"

Some of the UK tabloids (eg the Mail) and some of the US media described Alessi as a "cellmate" of Guede's. The UK "quality" press (eg the Times) use a more general "fellow prisoner". As far as I am able to read the Italian press (poorly), they seem to use expressions implying that both were prisoners at the same prison. Is there a source that makes clear whether Alessi and Guede ever in fact shared a cell (ie were literally cellmates)? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they were not, according to [5]

I due sono stati detenuti a lungo nella stessa sezione del carcere di Viterbo, ma da qualche tempo sono invece in aree diverse del penitenziario.I legali hanno annunciato azioni legali nei confronti di Alessi.

The two were detained in the same wing of the Viterbo prison, but then they were moved to different wings; they've never been cellmate.Salvio giuliano (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It sounds like "cellmate" was a bit of journalistic licence. We should probably stick to "fellow prisoner", or equivalent, in the article, then. Bluewave (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Be my guest. ;) Salvio giuliano (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Media sources

I've started looking at the cited sources for this article. Initially I was just looking for broken links that will need repairing. I was also planning to look more critically at how strongly the sources support what we are saying - I think there are a few cases where we state things as fact and then cite a newspaper which reports one of the protagonists in the case claiming that thing is a fact. Some of the newspaper reports also use a lot of weasel words: "witnesses claim that...", etc. If possible, it is better that we find other sources that tell us, for example, who the witnesses were and when they made their claim. Another concern is the choice of sources. Regarding the UK papers, the "serious" ones are The Times, Telegraph, Financial Times, Guardian/Observer and Independent (plus the Scottish Herald, The Press and Journal, Courier and The Scotsman). The Daily Mail and Express have at least some claim to serious journalism. However we're also relying on cites from the Star, News of the World, Sun and other tabloids, not exactly noted for serious journalism. The Sun's idea of a journalistic scoop in this case would probably be for Amanda Knox to get her kit off and pose for Page Three! Bluewave (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could correct this source: "In January 2009, just as her trial was getting underway, Knox filed a lawsuit against the author, Fiorenza Sarzanini, director of Corriere della Sera Paolo Mieli, RCS Quotidiani S.p.A. and RCS Libri S.p.A. magazines, claiming that allegations in the book and magazines were false and that he had no right of access to her private diary and notebooks.[234]" The reference is incorrect as it does not name the author (it says "a Corriere della Sera crime journalist") or say the allegations were false or that she (Fiorenza Sarzanini is a woman) had no right of access.Kwenchin (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. That's exactly the kind of thing. However, I was leaving off editing that particular section while it is the subject of debate at the NPOV noticeboard. But, yes, it does need correcting. Bluewave (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Bluewave, Please do not engage in any unilateral wholesale deletion of sources and text from the article. If you find defective cites, you should make an attempt to locate a proper cite before deleting or altering the cite or text. If you cannot find a proper cite than please post a notice here first before deleting any source or text. It took me and other editors a long time to find those cites and write sections of that text, so proper notice should be given before undoing all that work, and a reasonable opportunity provided for the author to include suitable citations. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

T.V. Documentary on this case, Sunday, March 28 at 8 and 11 pm, Eastern Time

For those interested in learning more about the background on this article, The Learning Channel will show a one hour T.V. documentary at 8 & 11 pm, Eastern Time, on Sunday, March 28, 2010. The name of the documentary is "The Trials of Amanda Knox. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed Timeline

Contrary to the opening sentence, every time is not sourced and some of the statements are mere conjecture. The entire section looks like a work in progress lifted from a blog. At a minimum we should delete the times that don't have a reference, but it may be better to just delete the entire section. If times are critical to the discussion of some detail of the case, include them in the discussion of that detail.Footwarrior (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I didn't comment on the section and sub section above here (as I try not to comment on topics which I find to be very non-enziclopedic in nature), I do think this section has no bearing as it doesn't add to the understanding of the article's subject. So it should be gone and useful info added as prose in an appropriate sections unless already there, of course.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This whole section is ridiculous. It completely ignores the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of the murder. You'd think a timeline of the murder would include the prosecutions theory of the case. This timeline obviously includes the defenses POV of the case, which is very odd considering the defense was rejected by the court. They were after all found guilty. A timeline of the case should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Statements without references in this section have been removed. My plan is to look at remaining lines, move any that should be incorporated into the rest of the article, and then delete the rest of the section. Footwarrior (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. Bluewave (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The reference for the line "02:30 Rudy Guede is seen dancing at Domus nightclub (3 hours after the death)" gives the date as Nov. 3. Without a reference for this happening on Nov. 2, I don't see the point in having this fact in the article. Footwarrior (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement about Rudy dancing at the disco has been removed. Footwarrior (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've seen it stated that Guede was out dancing shortly after the murder, which ruled him out from being the person who went back and rearranged the crime scene. But I don't have a source. And I agree that without a source you're right to delete it. Bluewave (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Learning Channel Documentary

Since the Learning Channel documentary contained clips and other information not available through other sources, can we agree that if a written transcript becomes available of the documentary that that can be used as a reliable cource for the article? Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja, I wouldn’t consider The Learning Channel as exactly a bastion of investigative journalism, this is after all, the network that broadcasts Toddlers and Tiaras, L.A. Ink , and other dubious reality shows … From what you noted above, I also don’t quite think that the Italians consider the opinions of Americans as a ”problem” or a need to “prepare for battle” by any stretch. Jonathan (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This documentary was originally shown on Channel 4 on 5 January (but I missed it). Apparently it was re-edited for the U.S. audience. In what way, I don't know. These kind of documentaries seem to think it makes better television to adopt a particular point of view rather than simply giving the facts and allowing viewers to think for themselves. I can hazard a guess from the title (The Trials of Amanda Knox) which particular point of view they have chosen. We would need to consider verifiability, which would mean having a transcript from a reliable source. The next issue would be the reliability of the documentary, and I think this would depend on how we might use it in the article. Certainly, we might mention its existence and briefly summarise what it was about, if we agree that it is notable. Similarly, we should probably make mention of notable books that have been written about the case. If the programme contains interviews with key people who are central to the case, the content of those interviews are probably citable. However, we need to be very careful of separating opinion from fact. Documentary-makers generally prefer to blur the distinction between the two, but they are producing entertainment, not an encyclopaedia. Bluewave (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

One problem with this documentary is the large number of interviews with bloggers. Since bloggers are not considered reliable sources neither can transcripts of their interviews. "The Trials of Amanda Knox featured interviews with the Knox family and Amanda’s friends alongside exclusive access to the letters that she has written from prison in Italy.":- this would indicate that it is very biased forgetting that three people committed the murder together. Also how come they allowed the letters to be shown when she sued someone else for breach of privacy! Or has her PR company selected the letters. Kwenchin (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Kwenchin (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

When I mentioned "key people who are central to the case", I certainly wasn't thinking of bloggers or the Knox family or Amanda’s friends. They can provide plenty of opinion (and we have no lack of that) but cannot shed any light on the murder...they mostly weren't even in the country at the time. Bluewave (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
They interviewed Mignini and his deputy — a woman whose name escapes me, at the moment —, but those were definitely not the interviews of the century. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
They were just snippets of actual interviews, at least in the American version.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in the version I saw, there were just snippets too. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 01:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Censorship again

I wrote, she undid; now, let's see if they can help us. You can call me Salvio (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was an NPOV noticeboard and I didn't know how to do the nice table thing with the two versions side by side. This is proving to be a real education for me. I hope it is more productive than the other noticeboards... Bluewave (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Zlykinskyja, wouldn't it be a good idea to stop editing this section while it is discussed at the NPOV noticeboard? Bluewave (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
When I got there, I saw the table, I liked it and I shamelessly copied it. ;)
And I too hope that that noticeboard will be productive; I'm fast getting downhearted. You can call me Salvio (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm still hoping that some useful guidance may come from the NPOV noticeboard, but my hopes are waning! I have not commented at length on that page, because I didn't want to add my own verbiage to a section whose length is already likely to frighten away people who might be able to help. We may well end up having to sort out the issue here, so here are my views.
People have already pointed out a few unsourced claims in Zlykinskyja's version of the text, such as the implication that the Italian Governments was involved in leaking Knox's diaries to the media. These need to be fixed, but that should be easy to do. Salvio's summary fits very well into the "Civil actions" section and is proportionate with the other cases mentioned in that section. So I would cover the civil case in that way. Zlykinskyja's text is mostly about concerns with the pretrial reporting by the media and I wonder if we should rework the existing "Media coverage" section, along with Zlykinskyja's material, and focus on the main issues of media protrayals of the case. The pretrial publicity is one of these, but I think it is misleading to suggest that it is the only one. Other notable features of the media coverage are the influence of the Knox-funded PR campaign (which currently only gets a brief mention) and the personal attacks by the media on the prosecutor, Mignini. Both of these are unusual issues in the media coverage. Just my 2p worth. Bluewave (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd have closed that discussion already, if I knew how to do it, because it appears that nobody is interested and it seems to be working against my concerns (I hoped some parts of the text could be expelled, but those cannot be, right now, because, doing otherwise, we'd decontextualize those same pieces of information).
Your proposal is perfect, for me. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtroom events. Neutrality discussion? Where?

Someone has added a template to the sectionon courtroom events, saying "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page." But there is no discussion. Bluewave (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Still no discussion. I'll remove the template and restore the original note that this section was reached through consenus. If anyone wants to reinstate the NPOV template, please read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute first. Bluewave (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Also removed the one from the section on judges' report for same reason. Bluewave (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with removal of template. I don't see where the neutrality of this section is in dispute either.Malke2010 18:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing dispute over NPOV in this section and in the article. The fact that most of the discussion of this section has been taken by the Bot and put on a prior page does not mean that the discussion has been resolved. The template needs to stay since we are a long way from resolution. Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This nonsense with removing the template has to stop. All editors have the right to challenge the text. The courtroom section is far from NPOV because it does not adequately represent the views of the defense. It is too slanted to the prosecution side of the case--such as minimizing the very major issue of the lack of DNA of Knox in the murder room. That is the key defense issue, yet it is presented as a minor point in this section. The main issue with the article though is that there cannot be a 'consenus' to edit in a non-NPOV manner or in violation of BLP. So even if an alleged "consensus" was reached, that is not binding on those who disagree and feel that NPOV and BLP are not being complied with in that section or in the article in general. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say the "nonsense" is to apply a tag which points people to a discussion on the talk page, only to find there is no such discussion. The NPOV tag is part of a process described at Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute. This states, amongst other things: "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." The specific issues that are actionable within the content policies were certainly not discussed here and, from a quick look at the archive, I can't find them there either, although I found a posting of my own where I invited them to be raised. If they are in the archive, I think the onus is on the person who adds the tag to make their location clear to any reader. This hasn't happened. The above comment by Zlykinskyja begins to describe specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely that she thinks the current text "minimiz[es] the very major issue of the lack of DNA of Knox in the murder room". That is something specific that can be discussed. So, let's discuss it. The current text is:
"Furthermore, the defence pointed out that there was not a single piece of Knox's DNA found in Kercher's bedroom, where the crime had been committed."
And this is in the context of a section which sums up the prosecution case in 3 paragraphs and the defence in a further 3. Personally, I think the above defence point is consistent with the overall length of the text and the fact that key prosecution evidence is similarly summarised. For example, the prosecution's evidence of the "double DNA knife" is summed up as:
"and the kitchen knife retrieved from Sollecito's apartment which had Knox's DNA on the handle and a minute trace of Kercher's DNA on the blade. The prosecution claimed that this was the murder weapon."
So, over to you Zlykinskyja. How do you think the above text about the lack of Knox's DNA should be improved to make it more NPOV? Bluewave (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The POV of this section should reflect the fact that Knox was found guilty. Wikipedia should reflect the facts on the ground. The matter is no longer up in the air. When Knox appeals the article should report the basis of her appeal. The evidence is no longer being discussed. She is found guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd be right if you were talking about the American legal system: in Italy, if you appeal, the Appellate Court will try de novo the defendant. Notwithstanding this, Amanda, at the moment, is a convicted murderer and if her appeal were deemed unreceivable by the Appellate Court, her conviction would become res iudicata. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)