Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 18

Working through the issues in the appeal section.
In this edit, Bluewave makes a bold attempt at a number of changes. I'm going to list what I see as his edits below, and then suggest that we focus on exactly one of those points and see if we can find a change to the article that satisifes everyone.


 * 1) Bluewave created subsections.
 * 2) Bluewave added a number of qualifiers to statements
 * 3) Bluewave shrunk a number of sections out.

I'd like to focus only on the sentence "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences." I think that Bluewave suggested "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against what they regard as the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences." While I suspect Bluewave would admit his verbiage is slightly tortured (no offense intended, as my verbiage is very tortured), I think that the underlying point deserves discussion.

It appears to me that the key difference of opinion here is how much clarity needs to be given to statements of obvious opinion - like "Jane filed his appeal about the abject stupidity of John." - Obviously, the appeal states that John is abjectly stupid, and so the appeal is about said abject stupidity.

However, from an NPOV point of view, it can confuse the reader into thinking that we are stating as fact that John is abjectly stupid, when, actually, we are just describing the appeal.

Does this sum up the dispute well? Is there a way we could write this point to fix everyones problems? Off the top of my head, I would say that "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed an appeal, in which they argued that Knox's and Sollecito's sentences were too lienent." Now, before responding, I'd like people to review Consensus decision-making, which I am attempting to follow. Specifically, I feel that everyone discussed the item above and then I went ahead and formed a proposal, which I now present for consensus. You can either agree that the sentence should be changed to "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed an appeal, in which they argued that Knox's and Sollecito's sentences were too lienent," or you can raise a concern. If someone raises a concern, we'll go back to discussing. If there are no concerns, we've improved the article, and I'll move on to another sentence or section, or something. Hipocrite (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No concern at all from my side.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No concern from me either...and feel free to highlight my tortured prose :-) Bluewave (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, I think I may have done an identifiable fourth thing: extracting the apparently factual content from quotes and building it into the main text. That was a specific aim I had, and is something that people might regard as either good or bad. Maybe you include that under the "shrinking" heading, though. Bluewave (talk)
 * I also agree. Akuram (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, too. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the above and Zlykinskyja's 03:11, 21 April edit ("Since you asked, I have no problem with your proposed sentence."), I'd like someone to change "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed its appeal against the leniency of Knox's and Sollecito's sentences." to "On 15 April 2010, the prosecution filed an appeal, in which they argued that Knox's and Sollecito's sentences were too lienent." Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, except for the typo :P &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Hipocrite: Thank you for your kind efforts to try to sort this out. But I had already made very clear to Bluewave that I am very tied up with a very important real world commitment and could not participate in detailed discussions for several days. Nevertheless, he started this dispute by removing the bulk of my work on the appeal, as usual, knowing that I would not have time to deal with this. Now, more of my time is wasted today when I am under the gun for time and can't participate. No matter how much I protest that BOTH sides of the story need to be included to make the story NPOV and non-defamatory, Bluewave and the other editors on here keep deleteing my work. It is not a reasonable situation in the least. I wish to add that this analysis of Bluewave's work as set forth above does not include all the points I raised about including the other side of the story and the overall impact on the article and on Amanda Knox's right to her good name (if she is innocent) when the information responding to these claims against her keeps getting deleted. That is all I can say for now. I am very tied up as I have said, and Bluewave well knew. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea behind trying to work through things an issue at a time is that it prevents you from being overwhelmed by a massive change. Do you have a thought on the one sentence change above? Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, I am getting very, very tired of your allegations in nearly every sentence you write here. You seem to feel the need to present yourself as some kind of arch avenger of Amanda Knox and everyone who does not agree with you is eventually the demonic enemy. I see that you are a hotspur and I agree that others here try to antagonise you royaly. But serioulsy, this is not the place for personal vendettas.
 * Therefore I will take part in this discussion again. First of all I would like to emphasise, that I hardly ever take part in discussions (I rather read and form an opinion for myself, which I infrequently ever see neccessary to blurt out) and I make even less edits in articles of Wikipedia. For example, this article has not been touched by me at all until now. Having said that, I feel the strong need to point out to you, that you apparently don't seem to grasp the simpliest of all principles in NPOV. NPOV can never reached by including your opinion! If you feel that the article is biased in a way which you cannot accept, it will not be reverted by including a biased statement, opinion or a personally visualisation of the events of the other side of the story. In fact, it makes it worse! I ask you to keep this in mind from now on. This article does not need the "other side of the story". It just simply doesn't need any side of the story! (I for example don't care at all if Knox is guilty or not at the end. I just care about an interesting article, which should definately find its place on Wikipedia, if kept neutral. I have no stakes in either "side"!)
 * This article should only be about reported facts. No opinions from you, me, other editors, the press or any other not involved party. That includes in my view the opinions of the Knox family as well as friends from Kercher and people who think Knox/Sollecito are guilty/innoncent, regardless of their prominence. Only if we all keep this in mind, will we ever reach NPOV. In recent years it has come to some dubious understanding, that inserting quotes and press sources makes an article more reliable and more true. Well, unfortunately the press is in a lot of cases just as clueless as anyone else. Therefore including sources is a dangerous thing. Especially if these sources only "specialise" on one aspect/side and follow their own agenda. As I understand, it is very promising for the US media to highlight and impose facts, that support Knoxs innocence. You said it yourself, that you write especially for the US side, which sees things very different from the Italian/English side. Therefore it makes your "side of the story" not more reliable, if you always back it up with these kind of sources. All you achieve is a biased side of the article which for sure provokes someone from "the other side" to write something just as biased or delete your edits. You see what I am getting at? Ultimately we will never reach NPOV.
 * This article is in my humble opinion already too blown out and because of two higly oppositional sides contains more quotes, than a book about the war of the roses. Hippocrite has suggested we use WP:BRD until and during the time of mediation. Even though I rather would not contradict him, I suggest we use the policy of NO EDITS AT ALL until mediation is finished. The article is already significantly different from the version we agreed to have the mediation about and you suggested, that because of recent events, it needs to be updated. Well, I say clearly NO to this. Wikipedia articles are no newspaper and they are no internet blogs either. The article, if the status quo is kept for now, will still present a lot of knowledge, even so we do not update it hourly. Mediation has been scheduled for the 30.04.2010 if I am not mistaken, so I ask everyone (not just you) participating in this article to stop editing until then, because evidently WP:BRD ist not working here at all.
 * The little help Hippocrite has already tried to give is very promising and I trust, if we keep to his way of sorting things out, we will come to some kind of compromise we all can agree on. I will try to participate more in this discussion in order to help to get to this compromise Akuram (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Akuram, I could only scan your dribble but I took note of all the insults and personal attacks. You acknowledge the harassment by Salvio, Bluewave and The Magnificent Clean-Keeper--- "I agree that others here try to antagonise you royaly"---then you essentially condone it. That is so utterly ridiculous. After today's reverting harassment, attempts to have me blocked, deletion of 20-30 of my edits, I am not willing to put up with this any longer. This is clearly a gang up situation intended to allow only one side of the story--that Amanda Knox slit her roomate's throat--although not one of you know for a fact that is true. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an effort to convince the public of a defendant's guilt before a court has finally determined that. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you please review the very simple one sentence change above and comment on it? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrit, sorry for the delay, but I got tied up after some of the pro-guilt editors tried yet again to get me blocked or banned. This is why I get discouraged and can't accept the fantasy that they are acting in good faith. Good faith does not mean continuously trying to get another editor blocked or banned and constantly reverting and deleting (as a team) a solo editor's work to provoke an edit war, and allowing only pro-guilt edits to be made. It is just more of the endless harassment. It is not a coincidence that I am the only non-pro-guilt editor left on this article. I just don't see any hope that this can be worked out. Since you asked, I have no problem with your proposed sentence. But tomorrow I cannot be here at all due to prior commitments, as I already noted. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, whats the point then? If you won't read, what other people have to say, but the little you "scan" is "dribble" in your eyes, than I start to understand the opposition against you. As I have said above, but you obviously didn't scan that, is, that I simply don't care, if Knox/Sollecito are guilty or innocent. So, I am not one from the "pro-guilt" side, nor am I on the "pro-innocent" side. I solely care about NPOV! Akuram (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION SOUGHT ON BREAKING NEWS REPORT
There needs to be an explanation for what is going on. Is this true or a hoax? I have no idea. I can find no information on other sites, except for someone on one site saying she is crying over what she read here. Please clarify ASAP. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

There are e-mails flying around about this and much confusion. Someone needs to step up ASAp and explain whether this is a hoax or is actual tragic news. Zlykinskyja (talk)

Can Salvio tell us ASAP whether it is true this is being reported in Italy.Zlykinskyja (talk)

Stop deleting my request for a clarification. Wikipedia put news out there and now people are upset and tuning in here for information. If this is a hoax, then they should see the notice when they click on here that the information may not be true. It is bad enough to put that kind of news out there if not true, but worse to keep people wondering and not clarify it. That is just too cruel. Enough with this vicious harassment. Zlykinskyja (talk)


 * Zlykinskyja, It looks as though IP 81.154.56.189 was the one that initially put the hoax in .. I'm sure that can be research quite quickly. Jonathan (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

THERE WAS A MALICIOUS "BREAKING NEWS REPORT" ON THE ARTICLE FOR TWO HOURS THAT MS. KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE. THIS HOAX CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF DISTRESS. I HAVE POSTED A CLARIFICATION SO THAT PEOPLE CLICKING ON HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION WILL SEE THAT IT WAS NOT TRUE. PLEASE STOP DELETING THIS CLARIFICATION SO THAT THESE VICIOUS RUMORS CAN BE STOPPED. WIKIPEDIA NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR WHAT FALSE NEWS IT HAS PUT OUT THERE. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was an IP-vandal edit which happens all the time and it has been reverted. End of story.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Adding a banner, or any response other than deletion and a warning on the editors talk page will simply encourage vandalism.Footwarrior (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Time-out
Putting a big bold breaking news headline is completely inappropriate. I'm protecting the article for 24 hours to let tempers cool and avoid complicating the ongoing mediation with further 3RR issues. Note that this is not taking any stand on the status of anything else in the article, and if a clarification is deemed to be required on the hoax, feel free to propose one with appropriate wording and sourcing. MLauba (Talk) 01:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

FALSE POSTING AS "BREAKING NEWS" OF THE SUICIDE OF AMANDA KNOX
This is a copy of the notice that was posted at the top of the article for two hours, in bold lettering:

Breaking News 21st April 2010 at 22:37 GMT - Reports of the death of Amanda Knox in Jail via apparant suicide This is yet to be confrimed by Italian police but several reports are filtering in.

The information was totally false and malicious. I can't think of anything more malicious than to post on the Internet that a young girl in a foreign prison had committed suicide.

The "breaking news report" was left on this article for all the world to see for two hours, and many readers probably believed it was true, as I did initially. Not one person involved in this article took any steps to remove the information during those two hours. Then, when I attempted to post a clarification, the Magnificent Clean-Keeper immediately removed it. Why did not one person on this article remove the notice that Amanda Knox committed suicide, but instead instantly removed my attempted notice that it was incorrect information? Then Salvio attempted to get me blocked or banned for trying to post a clarification that it was not true information. The behavior on this article just gets worse and worse. Really, how low can people go. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is going on with this article.

I certainly hope that no relative or close friend had a heart attack or stroke or suffered too much after learning from Wikipedia that Amanda had "committed suicide."

The false information was reported as fact on the Newsweek website, using Wikipedia as a source:

Amanda Knox on Newsweek

'''Read about Amanda Knox at Newsweek. ... 2010 at 22:37 GMT - Reports of the death of Amanda Knox in Jail via apparant suicide This is yet to be confrimed by Italian police but several reports are filtering in. Read More»From Wikipedia ...''' topics.newsweek.com/amanda-knox.htm - Similar

The deletion of the notice that the information was incorrect was, in my opinion, highly malicious and inexcusable given the nature of the false report. Retractions are ALWAYS necessary and appropriate under such circumstances. I can think of no justification for not issuing a retraction or clarification. Furthermore, I did ask an adminsitrator to post a clarification or retraction, I did that on the administrator's noticeboard where Salvio was seeking to get me banned or blocked for trying to post a notice of clarification. But that request for a clarification was ignored. Salvio paints me as the wrongdoer for trying to post a clarification, BUT NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT THE PERSON WHO FALSELY POSTED A NOTICE THAT AMANDA KNOX COMMITTED SUICIDE. This is like "Alice Through The Looking Glass"--a little world where everything is backwards. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It sure is interesting that the guy who started the "edit war" by removing my notice that the suicide report was false just signed up today and was welcomed by Salvio. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

So this guy signs up today just to revert my notice of clarification that the suicide report was wrong! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mpike0424 Incredible. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see his account was created just one minute before his first revert. That about says it all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looking at the timing and sequence of events on some of the accounts involved, things do not look legitimate at all, and I will pursue this fully. There is much more to this story than just a random troll. 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What point are you verbosely trying to make? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Locking the article
I think there is a case for putting some sort of longer-term block on editing the article until mediation is completed. Fortunately I missed yesterday's fiasco, but it looks like it resulted in a flurry of edits to the article, over 30 edits to this talk page, plus a 3RR case and and edits to users' talk pages. The only outcome was the reversion of one piece of malicious vandalism. Since Hipocrite started the request for opening statements by participants in the mediation, on 16 April, there have been nearly 100 edits to the article and it doesn't look any better for it. If all that effort had gone into mediation, we might have made some real progress: as it is, the mediation seems to be taking a back seat, while the business-as-usual of edit-warring goes on. I think the harsh reality for us (me included) is that we are making no progress with improving the article and we would be much better employed focusing on the mediation. However, while we are unhappy with the article (me included), there is a great temptation to edit. Putting a lock on the article would force us (me included) to focus on the priority—the mediation (and I'm also including Hipocrite's work on getting us to agree the appeals section, when I talk of mediation). Bluewave (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At present, absent immediate vandalism, locking down the article pending mediation is something I gave consideration when putting the lock in place. However, the mediator's advice and proposed proceedings (BRD remains a sound approach overall to avoid essentially locking down the article indefinitely - there is simply no stable version that can be readily identified at the present stage to revert to, and it also hampers any good faith efforts to fix several of the article's defects.
 * The 1 day protection was intended as a measure to avoid that parties to the mediation shoot themselves in the foot over an emotional situation, a temporary measure that can be re-conducted as required whenever tempers flare.
 * A case for long-term semi-protection seems a bit stronger considering the high profile nature of the article, and that its disputed state makes it a magnet for drive-by vandalism.


 * That being said, I strongly urge all parties to:


 * Concentrate on factual comments and refrain from any direct or indirect characterization of the actions of any other party to the mediation


 * Put all past offenses and slights, real or perceived, behind them, resume assuming good faith no matter what happened in the past and stick, strictly, to that position during the course of the mediation


 * Extend WP:AGF to any contributor that isn't clear and obvious vandalism, regardless of the age of an account or whether it is been made by a named or IP account


 * Refrain from the impulse to immediately replicate any news story pertaining to the case as it gets published, which should help putting these into a broader perspective.


 * I have watchlisted this article, and while I intend to take no administrative action that is susceptible to hinder mediation, I do intend to enforce WP:NPA strictly going forward, and without further warnings. MLauba (Talk) 11:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! On re-reading my comment, I'm really saying we should put our effort into the mediation rather than futile edits to the article. It should be within our own power to do that, without having to ask you to lock the article (but sometimes an alcohol has to ask someone else to lock up the whisky!) Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I no longer have faith that this article can be editied in a reasonable manner. I think what happened yesterday was atrocious. I know that when I saw the notice of Amanda's suicide I was distraught. It just struck me as so sad that this poor girl who has been so horribly attacked in the media, including on here, would give up and kill herself. I felt very sorry for her family. I don't see what happened as a minor matter at all, nor something that should just be brushed under the rug. There should indeed be action taken against anyone involved in this fiasco. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to IP vandalism
This edit was blatent IP vandalism. High profile articles are frequently attacked by vandals who announce the death of (in)famous people. I agree that it is a very big deal - a major failing of wikipedia generally. When this article comes off full-protection, I will ask a friendly admin to semi-protect it indefinetly to prevent this from happening again.

However, per WP:RBI, when IP addresses try to rile us up by vandalizing articles, the correct response is to revert their changes, find an admin to block them, and ignore them. Please don't let them get under your skin - that's their goal! I know it's hard when an IP address does something as blatently offensive as this recent episode, but you have to try. Let's try to put this recent episode in the past - next time, however, I'll take every action I can to not only have the IP blocked for a long period of time, but also to souse out if they have an alternate account here, so that it can be blocked for a long time also. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Since no one will take any action to address this, and this false report was put out on Newsweek and the Internet, I will try to do so. Accordingly, I ask that the discussion be restored. It is not appropriate to delete that discussion of the false report of the suicide of Amanda Knox at this time since the matter if far from resolved in my opinion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing was deleted. Click the "show" button if you want to read the old discussion. There's nothing that can be done to right old wrongs here. The false report was not "put" on Newsweek - they merely mirror our content. What exactly do you want done, in your ideal world, to deal with the IP vandalism? Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, Zlykinskyja, this might be a good time to remind anyone whom you think was seriously offended by the recent vandalism what Wikipedia Is Not. WP:NOT Jonathan (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are we now
Having not edited the article for nearly 2 weeks (and actually not spent much time looking at Wikipedia in that time), I thought I'd re-read the whole article and clarify at least my own view of where we are. So here goes...
 * I think the lead is the best part. We've managed to keep it to fact, not opinions. Some of the wording could be tightened up, but it summarises the events. Maybe there could be less detail about some things and more about others, but that is not a major problem.
 * The rest of the article is quite disorganized and repetitive (just one example—the allegation that the police struck Knox on the head is discussed in three different places). I think one reason for the repetitive nature is that there have been cases where editors have worked hard to agree neutral versions of particular sections, only to have less neutral descriptions of the same thing reappear somewhere else.
 * The very negative portrayal of Guede (particularly compared with the other defendants) is something that has been discussed here on the talk page but has not yet really been tackled. Quite a lot of the Guede section is taken from a few extremely negative media portrayals. Such negative portrayals of Knox also exist (eg the  Fantasy world fuelled by sex, drink and drugs story from The Times), but we have (correctly in my view) avoided reproducing them in the article. Even the description of Guede as a "drifter" is more journalistic than encyclopaedic. It's the kind of description that a newspaper can use to convey a negative portrayal without actually risking a libel action.
 * There is a huge amount of detail about timelines and forensic details. We have had discussions before about the purpose of the article not being to encourage readers to be "armchair CSI investigators" but I think the article still reads like this.
 * With the controversies section, it is difficult to distinguish genuine controversies from those that are purely invented by newspapers to liven up the story on a dull day. For instance, there is still stuff about "satanic rites", despite that theory never having been aired in open court and never mentioned at the main trials of any of the suspects. It is rather stretching credulity to suggest that it is a major controversy concerning the murder.
 * The pretrial publicity section remains an open issue, discussed earlier on this page. I have suggested a way forward, but without managing to provoke a debate! Whatever the way forward, I think that we should develop the press coverage section to focus more on the unusual aspects of the coverage: the potentially prejudicial pretrial publicity; the manipulation of the media by the Knox family and the personal attacks on the prosecutor, Mignini, are all notable features of the case and only the first is currently addressed.

Just my thoughts on the tough job facing us with this article. Bluewave (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the editors read "Angel Face" by Barbie Latza Nadeau before you go any further. A Newsweek reporter in Italy for 14 years, she was at the trial, and she adds a lot of important details about the crime that haven't been included her at all. She talks about the evidence presented against the two at the trial in great detail. There are lots of things that point to these two having committed the crime that are not even hinted at in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.240.217 (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave, I agree that the negative portrayal of Guede could be put into a better context. To go along with your example of his portrayal as a "drifter", Guede is refered to here as a "known drug dealer" .. while the article makes only a passing, almost casual mention of Knox admitting to drug use the night of the crime. This is one point that I am surprised has not received much more attention, after all, marijuana is illegal in Italy. Jonathan (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bluewave: The "negative portrayal of Guede" is entirely justified. By his own admission he left Meredith Kercher to bleed to death without calling authorities.  He was dancing at a disco later that night.  The evidence against him is overwhelming. The information on him is NOT taken from a a few negative articles and is largely undisputed.  Of course anyone who wants to speak with expertise on the case should read Barbie Latza Nadeau's book, as I have.  They should also keep in mind the gravity of her past history of incorrect reporting on the case.  She incorrectly reported that AK had had seven sex parters in Italy and that Rudy Guede had no defensive wounds .  More recently she makes heavily disputed statements that mixed blood samples were found .  She does indeed say that important details were not reported in the US.  But that begs the question, why didn't she report them?  She wrote at least 20 articles between Newsweek and the Daily Beast.SPCGuru (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Washing machine
The source for "The washing machine was found to be on final cycle with Kercher's clothes inside" is a newspaper report of a rumor. The words "Sources say" in the referenced article make this rather clear. I have been unable to find a mention of the washing machine in the Massei report or a reliable source for testimony at the trial. Given this, it clearly shouldn't be mentioned as a fact in this section of the Wikipedia article. But it might belong in a list of rumors in a section on pretrial publicity or media reports.Footwarrior (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you phrase this as a specific proposed edit, as Hipocrite has been encouraging us to do. Then everyone interested can agree or not....but please, please don't propose a list of rumors :-) Bluewave (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Footwarrior-I agree that if it is just a rumor it should not be in the article. If you find other rumors, those should be removed as well. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My proposed edit is to remove the entire sentence that starts with "The washing machine was found to be on final cycle". Footwarrior (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edit. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was just a rumor, I agree too. I think we should remove anything that looks like media rumours and speculation. There is a believable citation from the Grauniad that the machine was still warm and filled with Meredith's clothes, when Filomena arrived but I can't find anything about the "final cycle" that is believable. Bluewave (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Detailed timeline
The earlier discussion about deleting the detailed timeline has been archived. The presentation in the timeline doesn't even come close to Wikipedia standards and the events seem to be covered in the body of the article. Should I just go ahead and delete this section? Footwarrior (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is currently the subject of mediation (see somewhere above). Hipocrite, who is leading the mediation has suggested that, during the mediation process, editors restrict themselves to the WP:BRD process—ie making Bold edits, Reverting such edits if we disagree with them, then Discussing the issue (rather than edit warring). My advice (for what its worth) is that follow Hipocrite's advice and make the bold edit then, if it is reverted, open the discussion. I know the timeline has been discussed before but I would be inclined to stick to Hipocrite's proposed approach while the mediation is taking place. Bluewave (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with that at all. Any major changes to the article, like deleting or modifying a whole section, should be discussed in mediation. The way I read what Hipocrite was saying is that typical edits can be done outside of the mediation process, but not major changes like restructuring the article or deleting sections. There has been a ton of work put into the timeline section. There is no need to rush to delete that section. It does no harm just sitting there, and would best be taken up during formal mediation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not what I said. There are no prohibitions against boldly editing this article, except that I suggest you not edit war. Hipocrite (talk) 10:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From my perspective I would prefer that major deletions and restructuring be discussed in mediation first so that material is not removed without some sort of formal review. I assume that is the type of review that mediation can accomplish if requested. It gets discouraging when a lot of time is put in to do the research and writing and then it gets deleted. I think the timeline can be improved upon and made a useful section in the article. It helps me to focus on the sequence of events when I look at it, and I would think some others find it useful as well. But I recognize that the timeline needs a lot more work, as do many of the other sections. This is all a work in progress. It is getting done in bits and pieces since we are just volunteers. I think the more that is added to the article, the more informative it becomes. Then later, after everything is added, we can go back and do some pruning and tightening up. At least, that is what I have had in mind as one of the writers. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is not a formal review. It's a way for all parties to reach an agreement on something. If you don't want to put a lot of time in to do research and writing because you are worried that mediation will reach agreement - with you - then wait. Right now, you've asked that we wait to start the mediation for another 11 days because you're not able to edit. Just because that process is delayed dosen't mean this article is frozen at all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the topics that I hope we can agree on somewhere is the courtroom events section. I have added a templete to mark this section as needing more discussion. But I don't intend to make any major changes to that section until we hash it out in mediation since it strikes me that that would be the more harmonious way to try to change someone else's work. I understand that things are not frozen, it just seems that mediation would be the better format for major changes. Zlykinskyja (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Persuant to my mediation strategy, as opposed to tagging the section, could you instead rewrite it in your userspace to the version that you would prefer? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Response on Mediation page.Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting back to a discussion of the detailed timeline section. Is there anyone willing to defend the six lines for the time period 13:10 to 13:16?    In the "Timeline and police investigation" section, these events were described more appropriately (i.e. "The door to Kercher's room was forced open") for an encyclopedia  The times are not known to the precision suggested by the timeline.  Even if we knew the precise times, they are not important to understanding the case. Footwarrior (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Replaced lines from 12:55 on with one line. The Massei report states that Filomena and her friends arrived at about 1 PM and that the victims body was discovered shortly after 1 PM.  The times extending to 13:15 are not supported.Footwarrior (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference Massei report to replace a dead reference for times of phone calls.Footwarrior (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated some phone calls using Massei report as a reference. Removed a dead link reference used in this section.   Footwarrior (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor change
I've tweaked the lead because it read like it was a confirmed fact about the DNA evidence and the new witness. I think the lead could be cut down, actually; it's somewhat long and rambling for a lead section. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the detail about the appeals should have been added to the lead without discussion, when we are embarking on mediation. The lead includes no detail about the evidence presented in the original trial, so I don't think we should mention the challenging of that evidence when we mention the appeal. If we mention that the defendants are appealing we should also mention that the prosecution are appealing. If we say there is a presumption of innocence for Knox and Sollecito, we should also mention that there is the same presumption for Guede until his appeals have been exhahausted. Bluewave (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree; I'd chop the entire appeals section out of the lead, at least until it's completed. Otherwise we're leaning a little towards WP:NOT and this after all is "Murder of Meredith Kercher", not "List of the entire judicial process related to this case". Black Kite (t) (c) 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be fundamentally unfair and defamatory to paint Amanda and Raffaele as guilty, when that is not the case at this point. We have been over this and over this and over this and over this. It is indeed frustrating. They are not guilty at this point. Quite the contrary, at this point they are presumed innocent. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about guilt or otherwise? We are talking about cutting the lead down so that it concentrates on the main facts of the article, without confusing the reader with too much detail per WP:LEAD. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently you don't undertand the procedural posture of this case. At this point as a matter of law in both Italy and the US they are presumed innocent because they have an appeal pending. There will be a second trial at which they stand a strong chance of being acquitted. To state that they have been convicted, but to remove the additional information explaining the procedural posture, would be misleading, defamatory and unfair. If you want to cut things down, try deleting some of the excessive gory details in the lead, which could be included elsewhere. All that is needed to explain the crime is that Meredith was stabbed and assaulted and that the crime scene reflected a violent struggle. But to remove all the information explaining the true procedural posture makes the article misleading.23:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one is talking about removing information; merely that it doesn't all need to appear in the lead section. One can mention the fact that there is an appeal currently ongoing in a single sentence. Any detail required can appear in the section about the trial and appeals. That's the point of WP:LEAD. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then the information that Amanda and Raffaele were "convicted" needs to also be removed from the lead, since to state that they were found guilty, without clarifying that they are still innocent is far from neutral.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Over and over there is this constant push to try to have the article give the impression that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. It is extremely discouraging the way NPOV is ignored in this article. Presenting them as found guilty in the lead is NOT NPOV, and it isn't even true. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They were convicted of the crime. It is impossible not to mention that fact in the article; it doesn't stop us from mentioning that Italian law presumes innocence until the appeals process is exhausted.  We can only report facts; we are not here to write news articles or to make presumptions about guilt or innocence. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * NO. They do not stand convicted of a crime. We have been over this and over this for hours and hours repeatedly. They are presumed innocent at this time. That is the state of the law at this point. To state otherwise is incorrect, false and defamatory. They are still presumed innocent. How many hours do we have to spend on this same point. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a very big problem with wording that creates the false impression in the "lead" that Amanda and Raffaele are deemed guilty of this horrendous, sick crime. Since we have already spent hours on this same point, I suggest leaving the information that clarifies their status in the lead, or if not, then remove the information which gives the misleading impression that their guilt has already been determined. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Being (a) convicted of a crime, and (b) the fact that their legal status is currently presumed innocent until the appeals process ends are not mutually exclusive; they are both facts. "Being convicted" and "Being guilty" are not the same thing. Read Salvio's posting much further up the page. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

First, personal attacks like that are unnecessary. Second, you are totally incorrect that being found "guilty" (which is what a conviction is) and being "presumed innocent" are NOT mutually exclusive. The point is precisely that they ARE in fact mutually exclusive. A person cannot be both found guilty and presumed innocent at the same time. A person is EITHER guilty or innocent. Being both guilty and presumed innocent at the same time is not possible. This is why the information needs to stay in the lead, to clarify their status in a neutral manner. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try once more. As you have been repeatedly told o this talk page, under Italian law being convicted does not confer guilt until the appeal process runs out.  This does not alter the fact of conviction.  Oh, and that's not a personal attack, merely an observation.  When you throw around words like "defamatory" it's fairly clear you haven't got a balanced viewpoint on the subject, and that was before I read your previous contributions to this page. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it might help to consider a verdict as "suspended" once an appeal has been filed, which is how Mignini's verdict about the wire tapping has been labeled while he has appealed the decision. So, it could be said, in the article, that the "verdict went against them" but was changed to "suspended" once they filed valid appeal documents. To use the term "guilty" alone within a single sentence would be misleading (because of the common meaning of "guilty" to general readers, as opposed to the temporary legal status; compare to the term "presumed dead" versus "deceased"). If a celebrity disappeared for weeks, think of the outrage by stating "deceased" rather than "presumed" or "missing". Similarly, I have tried to always combine Guede's 30-year sentence with the 16-year reduced, so as to not leave the impression that the 30-year term was a final judgment. Remember: consider the readers to be mostly non-lawyers when wording the text, and they are likely to think, "guilty as sin". Perhaps use the Italian: "verdict was "colpevole" but was changed to suspended upon appeal". -Wikid77 07:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From Conviction: "In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime". The current intro says exactly what happened: The court found them guilty. Full stop. They maintain their innocence, and the case will be re-tried. Full stop. If you like, change "convicted" for "the court found them guilty". I also propose to strike the "presumption of innocence" part, which is a technicality and kind of self-evident. Averell (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point, Zlykinskya appears to be objecting to the word "convicted", which is completely factual and uncontroversial. We aren't in the business of using weasel words to describe simple facts because someone doesn't like it. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Black Kite: The lead should NOT be written to give the reader the impression that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Period. That is what your proposed changes will do. To say the presumption of innocence is "self-evident" is bunk. You and others on here have repeatedly struggled with that concept precisely because it is NOT self-evident. Any attempt to remove information from the lead which correctly clarifies their current status is clearly POV editing. It is a FACT that their current legal status is "innocent", although they were convicted in a first trial. All crucial facts: conviction, plus current status of innocent, plus the second trial, need to be stated for the lead to be accurate and NPOV.Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, where have I ever objected to the use of the word "convicted." Nonsense. That is just a red herring argument. Zlykinskyja (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, if you look up a short distance, you will see the following sentence, typed by yourself - "NO. They do not stand convicted of a crime.". That looks like an objection to the word "convicted" to me.  As for your other point, I have nowhere actually suggested "rewriting the lead to give the impression of guilt"; I have no idea what you mean by that; I have merely pointed out that there is a large amount of extraneous detail in the lead.  The lead does not need to go into the minutiae of the defendant's legal position in the lead - the title is "Murder of Meredith Kercher" and that is what should be outlined in the lead. I have no idea how moving information from the lead to another part of the article could possibly be seen as "POV". Black Kite (t) (c) 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I have made my point sufficiently clear. By removing the information that is ALREADY in the lead which clarifies the legal status of the defendants, and putting that information way down somewhere in the article, a reader clicking on to get an overview of this case via the lead will be left with the erroneous impression that Amanda and Raffaele stand guilty of the charges. I have said this over and over and I fail to see what is so difficult to understand about this. The lead serves to give an overview. That overview should be correct and not misleading. There is much that can be deleted from the lead that is not crucial to an overview, such as removing the excessive gory details of the crime, and deleting the information about the arrests, which is taken as a given at this point. If all that is removed, the lead will be much shorter, and there is plenty of room to clarify the current legal status of the defendants. So there is no legitimate reason to delete information which correctly clarifies the legal status of the defendants. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It has already been pointed out, but there is a great difference between "A. and R. were found guilty of M.'s murder" and "A. and R. are guilty of M.'s murder". The former version merely states a rather famous historic fact: a Court of law passed a verdict in which A. and R.'s guilt was established. This does not mean that they actually did it. And that is not an attempt at POV-pushing.
 * As for the mention of A. and R.'s appeal process, I concur it should be stated. But in an extremely short sentence. They were convicted. They appealed. So did the Prosecution. Nothing more is needed in the lead, in my opinion. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, the sentence must be "extremely short", since we wouldn't want the reader clicking on to the lead to get the impression that they might be innocent! Zlykinskyja (talk)


 * The readers must be informed that A. and R. filed an appeal. If the readers want more information, they just have to scroll down and go to the "defence points of appeal". Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We could argue all day and still only agree to disagree. In order to move this forward, I propose the following wording of the section: ''In December 2009 an Italian court found Knox and Sollecito guilty of murder, sexual violence and other charges. This verdict is not final, as the defendants have filed an appeal. The appeal will be based on claims that the DNA evidence was seriously flawed, and that there is a new witness who could give them an alibi. The new trial is expected to be held in Autumn 2010.'' This explicitly says that the verdict is not final, without emphasizing a legal technicality. I've intentionally removed some details that I found to much for the lead section. Averell (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I fully agree that other sections of the intro cut be cut, too. If you have suggestions on that Zlykinskyja, make your proposals. Averell (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd add that the Prosecution filed an appeal too, claiming that the sentences were too lenient. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Averell: yes, that is factual and neutral. Well worded. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I set forth my objections, below. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed off-topic remarks
I have reverted the non-article or WP:BLP violation comments on the talk-page, from IP 82.21.28.50 (in Lewisham, United Kingdom). We cannot leave BLP violations on a talk-page (such as "he's a sociopath" or "everyone knows the father of XXX was planning to kill the 4 guys downstairs"). Please remind others to focus on changes to the article, rather than rant about who is guilty or not. If more non-article or insulting remarks are added, please feel free to revert them, and perhaps add a note in this section. -Wikid77 07:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is remarkable that when people attack those posting pro-innocence views, including attacking with words like "cunt" and "cock shit" (such as happened last night) nothing gets done to them. Nothing. No blocking. No ban. Same situation when someone harasses the same editors by posting a false malicious report that Amanda Knox committed suicide, leaving the false notice there for two hours, and allowing it to be spread all over the Internet. No blocking. No ban. Nothing. But then a funny guy like Wikid simply posts a funny, innocent response and he gets blocked. Then I have insults hurled at me and nothing is done, but if I respond then I am admonished. The treatment of the two sides is unfair and discriminatory. Now that the opinions and views of the defense attorneys are not welcome in the article, and the administrators are not helping, I don't see much reason for any editor to continue who wants to see BOTH sides of the story included in the article. What a collosal waste of time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about a what lot of the above refers to, but I do think that it is important that this article contains relevant, verifiable facts, and nothing else.  pablo hablo. 19:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation
Users here should be aware that a mediation on this topic has been opened at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-03-26/Murder of Meredith Kercher. Everyone is welcome to participate, and participating does not place any requirements on you to do anything - Mediation is a way to find a consensus everyone can live with. Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few factual developments due in the next few days—the filing of appeals by all the parties (one of which was filed yesterday). I assume there is no problem in our adding a brief update of these events to the article, to keep it current, while the mediation takes place, is there? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Ooops. I added an edit with responsive info to Bluewave's last edit before I read this notice that mediation had started. I thought it was starting after April 29. I agree with Bluewave that there will be a lot of new info next week, so I think we need to clarify whether that new info can be added, given that the mediation will not be officially starting till after April 29. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this article however they want. I don't have magic police powers as the mediator, I have magic powers of not caring about this article and being able to broker an agreement everyone can live with. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This topic was moved back from archive. -Wikid77 08:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo caption
So what if Meredith went to nightclubs partied and had fun, lots of people do, it is irrelevent to this article. The hidden note reads thus- text required for FAIR-USE restriction - DO NOT REMOVE AGAIN without prior consensus where is this policy written down? No other article I have come across on wikipedia with fair use images requires that the fair use criteria to be placed in article space, most are content to leave that to the image file description. Can you please direct me to where this policy is written down so I can amend my editing if need be and to help correct those articles which have failed to adhere to this policy.KTo288 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:FAIRUSE, and applicable copyright laws: the basic idea is that a fair-use display of a photo is contingent upon use in an educational manner, where the text provides "critical commentary" about that image (text in the article, not the image page). The restriction to have applicable commentary, in the article, prevents the use of images as mere decoration or advertising a set of products by posting all their images, without discussing each image. Of course, from a practical standpoint, the goal is to avoid copyright problems, so if "everyone" is displaying the photo, it is highly unlikely to be an infrigement issue, such as iconic images of Knox & Sollecito. Nobody is going to sue Wikipedia over those basic images, and rejecting them is just a naive waste of time. -Wikid77 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As has already been explained to you, this is not a question about Fair Use or Wikipedia getting sued. It is a question of the WP:NFCC policy. This policy exists to make Wikipedia as free as possible, and not for legal reasons. Averell (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Usually the fair use criteria is embedded in the image description which can be accessed by clicking on the picture, and in normal practise the fair use image is so integral to the article that it is not neccessary to have this rationale in the caption, because it is not mere decoration but harmonises with text in the article. My reading of the situation is that despite your warning, the image was there as decoration, and the POV caption is an attempt to provide a rationale to keep the image, which is the wrong way round. There would be no need for the caption as it was if the backstory to the caption, namely Meredith Kercher's private life was expanded and detailed in her bio. That there is no such section suggests one or both of two things, that that part of her life is so thin and unexceptional that it does not merit a single sentence, or two that such details as were dug up by the press was so POV that editors here were loathe to repeat it here. What initially struck me about the caption was that it was POV of the worst kind, and was initially moved to amend it to something that was NPOV, only to be confronted by the hidden comment. I'm less now inclined to believe that the caption was a way to blacken Meredith Kercher's name by the back door, but in this form it is POV even if it is imported POV something which thus far few editors are willing to endorse.KTo288 (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Poll
However since the author of that note writes about consensus, a spot poll as to what that consensus is.

Keep caption as it is

 * Keep, in order to meet WP:FAIRUSE restrictions. -Wikid77 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Vote moved from remove sectionKTo288 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Remove or amend caption

 * Remove-KTo288 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove; I already removed it on grounds that it is frivolous, but he reverted my edit. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. The caption, if any, should be appropriate to the use of the picture in the context of the article, not concocted to try and meet fair use criteria. Knox's smile and Sollecito's supposed similarity to Harry Potter are not major themes of the article. I think the pictures improve the article but I fear they don't truly meet Wikipedia's quite strict criteria for non-free images. But I don't think we should be inventing captions that are not justified by the article, just to try and keep them. Bluewave (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Remove. The comment is out of place on this photo. There is no need to clutter up the infobox with this kind of statement.  Footwarrior (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Indifferent

 * Indifferent. He put this because he thinks that it will give the image a valid rationale and prevent deletion, which I somehow doubt. In any case, one of two things will happen: Either the image is deleted, in which case this is a moot point. Or the image is kept, at which point it has fulfilled its "function". Just my two cents. Averell (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Caption discussion
I have looked at the licensing for that image, and cannot see any reason that a specific caption is required to preserve licensing. Could someone explain that? pablo hablo. 11:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See below: . -Wikid77 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that someone has proposed deleting the photo, claiming it's under copyright. Footwarrior (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Pablo, where does one go to read the licensing on a photo? Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on the photo, it'll take you to File:Meredith-Kercher.jpg.  pablo hablo. 16:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the change I have just made to the caption of the Lead section photo (the one showing Meredith Kercher dancing at a nightclub) is acceptable to the majority. The previous caption seemed to be implying that Kercher had an unusually great interest in nightclubbing, an assertion that should have been sourced.    ←   ZScarpia  12:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets Discuss all the Photos
It seems that the discussion on the other photos was not noted on the article or Talk page. There should have been a notice on this Talk page so that we could discuss the photos before they were deleted. Can someone please restore the two photos that were deleted so that we can look at them and have a discussion on ALL of the photos at the same time? I don't see the logic or neutrality of allowing a photo of the victim but not a photo of Raffaele, a defendant. Having photos of the defendants adds a lot to the story, just as does having a photo of the victim.Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There was presumably a discussion about the deletion of the other images. It would have been linked on the relevant images' description pages either on Wikipedia or at Commons, depending where the files were stored.  pablo hablo. 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Speaking through policy, the difference is that the two other people involved are still alive and as such a free image is more possible to create than one of Kercher, per WP:NFCC. Having said that I am not totally convinced that the one of Kercher is necessary either. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I'm about to say here, I think that to have Kercher's photo in the article helps to give a face to the victim, thereby making her a real person — who was viciously murdered —. But I'm not a strong supporter of keeping the image, so make it some sort of a weak keep. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the pictures are free. The discussion all hinges on whether there is justification for keeping them in terms of 'fair use'. Personally, I would like to include them all (with appropriate captions!) but my view is irrelevant to the discussion about whether they should be deleted. Bluewave (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I've put these up for deletion is because they are not free (copyrighted) and they aren't absolutely necessary. If they were free, I'd be more than happy to have all of them. If they can be replaced in any way (either by text or by free images) they must go. So it's somewhat useless to have a discussion on wether we'd like to have them or not. Also, the already deleted images will not be restored unless someone convinces the deleting admin, or, failing that, to put them up for a deletion review. Re-uploaded images can be speedily deleted without discussion. Averell (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As much as I appreciate photos in Wikipedia articles, Averell is correct. If don't have permission to use the images, they must be deleted. Footwarrior (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, permission is not always required. If there is Fair Use, there is no copyright violation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct. But Fair Use doesn't mean that it can automatically go into Wikipedia. To be allowed here, it must be Fair Use and the criteria in WP:NFCC must all be fulfilled. Averell (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of Sollecito
I've noticed that this image box is back - without an image, just an external link. So we're left with a somewhat pointless caption, and no picture. I cannot see that it is the slightest bit relevant whether Knox thought he resembled Harry Potter, Dennis Potter, Harry Ramsden or Hare Krishna. What is the point of this orphaned caption? pablo hablo. 15:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no point, other than that an available photo of him might be found. In the meantime, I don't see a problem with deleting it.


 * Seems that the idea is, instead of including the images directly, to include an image box with a direct link to an external image. While this isn't against any non-free policy, it is plain weird. As I've argued before, the images are simply not that important. Plus, if you really want to know what the people look like - there are about 200 external links here, most of which have pictures on it. Heck, we could even note that on on some of the external links. I'd have deleted those boxes outright, but for the sake of mediation I just propose it here. Averell (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the captions and links to external files for three photos. An external link should not be used in place of a valid image.  pablo hablo. 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed a picture of a pair of spectacles. The spectacles are not suspected of being involved in the murder, nor the ensuing court cases. The image seems to have been added as a flimsy excuse to hang a caption dealing with one of the defendants' supposed resemblance to Harry Potter.  pablo hablo. 08:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OMG, you must be the only ones in the world who don't know Amanda met Sollecito because he looked like Harry Potter! But, hey, thanks for a good laugh. You know you need to get out more if you don't know anything about Amanda Knox. That's the best WP laugh I've had in days. ROFLMAO. -Wikid77 10:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, patronising gibberish though it is. If she 'met him because he looked like Harry Potter' (how would that even work?), and if how they met is relevant to the article then that information, properly sourced, belongs in the text of the article, not in a caption box.  pablo hablo. 10:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)