Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 21

Major Conference On What NPOV and BLP Mean For This Article
Virtual Conference at virtual Lausanne, Switzerland, home of the International Arbitration Committee

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/destinations/resorts/holiday-destinations-in-switzerland/lausanne.html

This article needs a major conference on the topic of what NPOV and BLP mean for this article. This needs to be discussed, analyzed, agreed upon, and general guidelines reached so that so much time is not wasted on this never ending dispute. The two sides are like two ships passing in the night on the issues of NPOV and BLP. So there needs to be a major conference on this, like some would have if assembling at a country club to iron out their differences. So pretend this is our country club located in the neutral country of Switzerland on the beautiful waterfront of Lausanne in front of the giant stone lion and we are all in the conference room, assembled to hash out these crucial issues of NPOV and BLP in this article. Tea? Cakes? Bueler? Anyone? Anyone? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll start by posing a first question, then I'll jump in the pool to cool off while the rest of you finish your tea and cakes:

1) How is NPOV achieved in this article if there is no final determination of guilt or innocence and the first verdict is hotly contested in the US? What guidelines should be adopted for determining NPOV under such circumstances? Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See answer above. NPOV can never be reached by including sides (either way). I suggest we take all sides out and stick to the known, hard facts. By the way, please stop generalising that the US in general contests the initial verdict. There are quite a few people in the US, who do believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty. I am having a good glas of red wine now, does the bar provide a bottle of Château Lafite de Rothschild? Anyone care to join? Akuram (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly would love to join but in my experience, cyber wine is no good and so I'll stick to what I have ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And in your view how are the "hard facts" determined? What source or sources determine which facts are correct or not correct, real or not real, proven or disputed, objective or subjective? Whose view of reality is the "truth" at this point? Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sides in that matter are opinions of uninvolved people. Media for example, journalists or celebrities from abroad. This article should not be a collection of opinions, links to opinions and views from people, which have never been in Italy, let alone at the trial. This includes opinions of people, who believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty as well. Disregard what comes from these so called sources and you are left with the crucial bits of the case. Maybe a look at other articles about murder cases with high media attention could nutch us in the right direction. Jack the Ripper for example (which by the way is a significantly smaller article). But I agree, it would narrow the article quite down. But in my opinion, that can only be good. Akuram (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are at least three sides to the story: "your" side, the opposite side and the NPOV side. Let's not confuse those clear sides.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV is no side! That leaves two, erase them and you achieve NPOV. Akuram (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's my point!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the solution is to avoid the use of adjectives/adverbs such as, "hotly contested." Malke 2010  20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Hopefully we'll get to those soon after resolving the bigger issues, although there is no hold-up to remove such peacock words in the meantime.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

All this needs to be clarified further. To me, to say remove both sides and you have NPOV says very little. I still don't see what guideline there is for determining the real facts when the facts are in dispute.

a) What is the actual source or sources for determining the true facts at this point?

b) Is Akuram saying that only the opinions from Italy matter but not opinions from the US? Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You got to be kidding me, right? Akuram (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That must be a joke, even so a bad one but still a joke. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should agree first on what a "fact" is in this case. Then move to what sources we should rely on for establishing such facts. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

For example--Query: Is it a "fact" that Raffaele called the Carabinieri police AFTER the Postal Police arrived at the house? Yes or No. Why or why not. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have wondered if they implied to Filomena to call the police (she was the Italian main "leaseholder" of the flat [duh]), but perhaps Filomena, being a law student had heard the italicized New Yorker motto ("Don't get involved" with Mignini), so she forgot to mention she wouldn't call the police herself. And yes, there are "good samaritan" laws in Italy: if someone imagines trouble and does nothing, they can be prosecuted as conspirators with the culprit (ya buddy), and that needs to be stated in the article. Imagine if Knox/Sollecito had waited, to see when Filomena would call the police: anyone want to bet they wouldn't also be charged as "conspirators" for not calling the Carabinieri? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just post a RS here and we, the editors can decide. It's that simple.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, you should try to avoid speaking on behalf of the "people in the US" or "opinions from the US" ... I think what you are really saying is that you are speaking on behalf of and/or representing those that disagree with the verdict. Not everyone in the USA disagrees with the verdict, nor does every Americans believe all of what the "US media" is reporting. Jonathan (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Homework for Conference Participants:

The first task that needs to be tackled is to understand, clarify, discuss and resolve what NPOV means for each participant. The best way to do that is for each conference participant to write down what he or she feels NPOV means for this article. The more detailed and specific, the better. You should all go back to your rooms at this lovely resort at Lake Geneva and write your essays in the next day or two. Then we will have each participant post his or her essay here when they are ready. When everyone has submitted his or her essay, we ask for volunteers to come up to the microphone to answer questions on his or her essay.

This will officially kick off our attempts to resolve what NPOV means for this article, and hopefully soon we can move towards a discussion of guidelines to implement an agreed upon formulation of NPOV for this article. At the conclusion, we will have a virtual tour by ship of Lake Geneva, during which virtual wine and cheese will be served. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, you got a tour of Europe, and all I got was this lousy Gulf oil spill here. I think that violates NPOV. Well, if you are meeting Jimbo in Europe, to discuss the legal issues about WP:BLP, please let him know that we definitely are trying to make the article wording seem less accusatory than before. No one, lately, has been inserting "the 3 killers" and such. Tell Jimbo, that the guy from New York (of "little Guede DNA"!) got banned for 2 weeks. If you won't go into Italy, then ask Salvio to meet you through the San Bernardino Tunnel, there into Switzerland. Enjoy the mountain air. Wiedersehn. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, Zlykinskyja, I think you're being way too lenient on these delegates—letting them loose on the free wine before they've done any hard work (and before I'd even arrived)! Also, giving them a day or two to write an essay is much too lax. Put some pressure on them to do it quickly and keep it brief! (Otherwise, they'll just fritter away the time swimming in the lake and drinking up all the wine.) For my part, I think the meaning of NPOV is easy: If someone reads the article, can they guess the opinions of the people who wrote it? And that applies to any part of the article, as well as the whole thing. So, if one part reads like it was written by someone who believes one thing, and another part reads like it was written by someone who believes the opposite, that might be balanced, but it is not neutral. So that's my homework done. Now where's the bar, and have they got any of that Château Lafite left? Bluewave (talk) 08:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a proposed edit in this section? This talk page is nearly impossible to follow. Sections should not be created without the goal of a specific concrete change to the article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrit: This is a much needed discussion. While the Talk page is messy, hopefully this section will be more organized for this much needed discussion. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So far we have only a vague definition from Bluewave, and no real answer from Wikid. Both boys have lost their pool privileges. People need to put on their thinking caps and try to put forward something meaningful that we can agree on. Clearly, there is no agreement on or mutual understanding of NPOV for this article and without that, we shouldn't be editing this article at all. Zlykinskyja (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry, this is not an appropriate use of an article talk page. This article talk page is to discuss proposed edits to the article, not to chat about policies. That you misunderstand NPOV is irrelevent - NPOV means that we describe all substantial viewpoints but take none - there, problem solved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrit. Wrong. This is a very appropriate use of the Talk page. Please stop trying to kibosh this attempt to resolve a major problem on this article. I did ask that this be addressed in mediation. That was my specific request, as written. But you totally ignored that. Now I am trying to address the issue here since my attempt to get that addressed in mediation was ignored. Where does it say that NPOV cannot be addressed on a Talk Page? Where is the rule that prohibits that? There is no such rule. So please stop trying to interfere with my efforts to resolve the most crucial issue with this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you never participated in the mediation, and it never started, so please don't state that I "ignored" anything - I ignored nothing, and I was happy to go over the article with a fine toothed NPOV comb, as I'm prepared to do now. It is you who is clearly engaging in unproductive delaying tactics. Stop. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"What NPOV and BLP Mean For This Article"? They mean neither more nor less than they do for any other Wikipedia article. This article should not be treated as some kind of special case. pablo hablo. 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is indeed a special situation. First, it involves very serious accusations against living people. If those accusations turn out to have been false, then an article which paints them as guilty could be viewed as defamatory against them. Second, there is no way to know at this point what the true version of the facts is. There has been no final determination of the facts. It could be a couple of years before guilt or innocence is finally determined. So at this point both sides of the story, both the prosecution side and the defense side, should be included, but there has been great resistance on the part of editors here to allow that. Instead the material that tends to show the defense side or criticisms of the prosecution or the case are constantly being deleted or proposed for deletion. There has been a continuing denial of the reality that NPOV requires BOTH sides of the story. That is the issue that needs to be resolved. To deny that there is a problem with how NPOV is being handled in this article is to deny reality. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cite specific examples where this article states as fact that something is true that is actually just a notable allegation, or where notable opinions "that tends to show the defense side" have been excluded and we will fix it. As it is, you're not proposing any changes to the article. Do so. Hipocrite (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hipocrite. Please stop disrupting this section. You do not have the right to try to block and disrupt someone else's attempt at a meaningful discussion of NPOV. If you want to discuss specific changes to the article, you are free to do so in another section. But you do not have the right to tell me that I cannot discuss NPOV on this Talk page and then attempt to block and disrupt this section. If NPOV had been discussed at mediation as I had specifically asked, things could have been a lot better instead of where things are now. There needs to be a meaningful discussion of how NPOV should be implemented in this article. If you do not want to discuss that topic fine. Don't. But trying to block me from having that discussion is not your right and it is counter-productive to the long range interests of having an NPOV article. Now please stop disrupting this section. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You refused to participate in the mediation, and then canceled it before it started - thus, the reason NPOV was not discussed at the mediation is entirely your fault. We are not having policy discussions here. Propose a specific change to the article or I will archive this section. Hipocrite (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Once again I ask you to please stop interfering with my efforts to discuss an important topic on this Talk page--NPOV. Who gave you the authority to censor this Talk page and to come on here DEMANDING that I jump to it and propose an edit, when I am in the middle of trying to resolve a central problem on this article. You need to back off. You are not an administrator, and do not have the right to make 'commands' of other editors or to make threats like that. In terms of the mediation failing, you had no prior experience as a mediator and it showed. You openly expressed your own subjective bias that attorneys are not trustworthy and took the position that their opinions should not be included in the article. So on the basis of that bias you essentially disqualified yourself. Now maybe you have sore feelings about that, but that does not give you the right to come back here and now censor my efforts to try to resolve that central NPOV issue. Unless you can cite to some rule or policy that says that NPOV cannot be discussed on a Talk page, you need to stop disrupting my efforts to discuss this crucial issue. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OMITTING FORENSIC DETAILS IS A MASSIVE VIOLATION OF NPOV: Removing detailed evidence that could be used to explain other events, in the article, is a total rejection of a major point-of-view: the facts. How can anyone honestly claim that removing the evidence in the case is an acceptable NPOV action? There are even crimes related to removing evidence, such as: evidence tampering, falsified evidence (erasing some shoe-prints), or obstruction of justice. And no, those are not about WP:NLT, just reminders that the real world considers evidence as extremely important, not to be casually deleted. However, for this article, the detailed evidence has been removed several times, in fact, totally deleted as a section named "Detailed forensics" 3 times. So, there. Case closed. Guilty as charged: the article for months has been outrageously slanted and biased on extreme violations of WP:NPOV by repeatedly deleting detailed, neutral facts that explained the murder. Those deletions are also a massive violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note (which I'll collapse at the same time while posting): Z.'s comments about "rights" one editor has or has not are more than way out of line and are just showing missing knowledge about WP policies and rules including common sense as it should be applied to WP's articles and talkpages. Since the editor doesn't have any experience despite her editing count which clearly shows her editing being limited (with this and other accounts) to only two articles since she started contributing, there is not much hope of change of the editors behavior. Despite her rejecting any (true by policy) claims of being a SPA account, she's running one and will remain so unless she would show her interest in other article's by editing. I myself posted on her talkpage recently to show my good faith towards her and my posts where removed right after I made a bold edit (against her believes) to the main page last night. Therefore I defiantly won't assume good faith from this (her) account anymore unless proven wrong, w/o doubt. That's it folks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it ironic that the position is being taken that NPOV cannot be discussed on an article Talk page, while someone else completely misues the article Talk page to make a personal attack like The Magnificent Clean Keeper just did. So I guess the rule some want here is that no discussion of how policies apply to an article should be allowed on a Talk page, but personal attacks are okay as long as you tuck then into a little awning. Not so. This personal attack against an editor does not belong on this Talk page per Talk page policy and needs to be deleted. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These continued insults by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper toward User:Zlykinskyja are completely off-base and wrong, including the condemnation (above) "there is not much hope of change of the editors behavior". Also, User:"TMCk" is wrong in stating that only 2 articles have been edited by User:"Z" while ignoring the wild reverts he made to those edits in those 2 articles, restoring many errors repeatedly, that had been corrected by User:"Z" or others. -Wikid77 (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Dream on, Wikid, dream on...The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed Hipocrite's attempt to archive this discussion based on his erroneous claim that NPOV cannot be discussed on a Talk page. That was totally inappropriate. It is not a violation of the Talk policy to discuss NPOV on a Talk page and it is very disappointing to see such uncivil conduct with these very aggressive efforts to disrupt this discussion. The fact that Hipocrite does not want to discuss the topic does not mean that I and others cannot discuss NPOV here. NPOV is the central issue that underlies almost all of the disputes in this article. If guidelines can be agreed upon to resolve how NPOV should be implemented in this article, that would be a huge benefit to all of the editors here, would save a lot of time, and would further Wikipedia's goal of having an NPOV article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Meta discussions are usually not welcome and mostly not appropriate for and at talkpages. There are specific pages to discuss any kind of policy which then can be applied to articles if there is a policy change and an outcome that affects articles like this one. Unless this happens, we are obliged to stick with and apply existing policies.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines For NPOV and BLP While Guilt or Innocence is Undetermined in this Kercher Case
In this section I would like to propose and discuss guidelines for implementing NPOV and BLP in this specific article given the special circumstance of guilt or innocence not yet being finally determined in this story. This situation is a unusual in that in most encyclopedia articles the end of the story is already known when the article is written. Yet in this situation we do not yet have an ending. So there needs to be guidelines established to comply with NPOV and BLP when the guilt or innocence of the suspects is not yet officially and finally known. Anyone who has any ideas for guidelines should feel free to contribute to the discussion and any list that will be drawn up. This is not an attempt to establish guidelines for any article beyond this article, but maybe a helpful precedent could be set for others to follow, if we are successful in adopting a useful, fair and efficient set of guidelines to help us in the Kercher article. It would be helpful if, to start, those who wish to participate in the discussion would first review WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Those policies should be the essential guiding principles of this discussion.

Discussion points/opening list for discussion

1) The basics of the prosecution side of the case should be set forth, including evidence and arguments.

2) The basics of the defense side of the case should be set forth, including evidence and arguments.

3) The main defects or problems in the prosecution side of the case, as noted by critics, including defense counsel, should be included.

4) The main defects or problems in the defense side of the case, as noted by critics, including prosecutors, should be included.

5) If facts are included that are strongly contested by the other side, the interpretation or view of that fact by the other side should also be included.

6) Media from all perspectives should be included, if included in a reliable source, to show in general how the media in that country is reacting.

7) Until the judicial process is finalized, it should not be presented as finalized, but as a work in progress.

8) Editors should be mindful of the presumption of innocence that applies until there has been a final determination of guilt or innocence. Suspects should not be written up as guilty of a crime before there has been a final determination of guilt, but rather handled as a suspect or defendant.

9) No effort should be made to push one side of the case or the other. The article should be neutral as to guilt or innocence. If, however, information is included tending to show one side of the case (i.e. guilt) then that leaves the door open for information tending to show an opposing view (i.e. innocence) to be included.

10) It must at all times be remembered when the accused are still living that BLP policies apply, and that poorly sourced, damaging information should not be included in the article.

These are just suggestions to discuss. Anyone else care to add to the list? Any comments so far? Are these guidelines consistent with NPOV and BLP in your opinion? Why or why not? Thank you for your participation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have come across some information about how NPOV is implemented in situations where there have been accusations made against someone, but the legal proceedings are still ongoing. This guidance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial&action=edit&section=5 is directly on point to our situation, and states as follows:

'''In cases where legal proceedings are ongoing, be particularly careful. Reporting on what has been said is acceptable, but inevitably during a court case some strong statements will be made one way or the other, and could be misleading if taken out of context. Try to get a balancing statement, as is done for example in reporting this exchange:
 * "Y stated that he once saw X with his hand resting on the pants of the boy when the two were playing video games... However, the boy denounced the molestation allegations as 'absolutely ridiculous' and said that nothing inappropriate has happened." '''

'''Where accusations are contested in a reliable source, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves:'''



It is not neutral to say: "Of course, she's probably lying." 

So this material is a pretty good starting point for our discussion, but needs to be further refined and expanded to help guide us with the Kercher case. I think it is pretty clear from this Wikipedia tutorial on NPOV which I quoted from that efforts to remove or diminish the defense side of the story in the article are not in accordance with NPOV. Rather, NPOV requires that BOTH sides of the story be included. So please let us agree on this and mutually draw up some guidelines that reflect NPOV policy which we can then expeditiously apply to this Kercher article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So this section I will reserve for any feedback on each the specific discussion items set forth above, which should be considered in light of the Wikipedia tutorial section I quoted. Please consider in particular the directive in the tutorial: "Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves."

________________________________________________________________

General Comments

 * *Sigh* Firstly, this whole meta discussion is pretty pointless. Remove the first two points of the list and disregard the rest as well, because this is not the coverage site or the "hourly update" of the trial of Knox and Sollecito! End of ... Secondly, I really would like to beg you Z., to stop the accusations and personal attacks at other editors, just they don't agree with you. They have a right to their opinion just as well as you have. Last but not least, In cases where legal proceedings are ongoing, be particularly careful. Maybe we should concentrate more on the very first sentence of your quote. Doing that, it is inevitable to just leave the sides out, cover the whole trial in a very short section stating basically that Knox and Sollecito got initially convicted, but appealed and are considered innocent until the end of legal proceedings. Again, this article is not about the trial or the "life and fate of Amanda Knox" but about "The murder of Meredith Kercher". This article should also not considered to be an "opinion maker". Akuram (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal within your comment sounds like a "solution" I could give my blessings for. You might want to put that thought into a new sub-section for discussion.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Note: the above comment by the Magnificent Clean-Keeper was posted out of sequence and has altered the flow) Please don't take the discussion off track by turning it into a discussion of who personally attacked whom. The personal attacks were not leveled by me. I responded only. I do not believe that personal attacks should be part of the discussion, so please don't start, as you did the other day. This discussion set forth above, including the large section that was improperly removed, was intended solely to be about the NPOV issues, despite many efforts today to take the discussion off track. This should be mature discussion about a mature topic, not all this gameplaying that went on earlier today. Enough with the nonsense. It is time for everyone to get serious and play fair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (reply to your personal comment that you pulled of below): And enough of your false accusations. Suck it up or grow up, gosh! The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing false about it. And stop removing and/or editing my comments on this Talk page, and stop using the word "fucking" at me as you have done before, and just did again in your edit summary. ENOUGH!Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing false about that? Realy? Anyhow, I "fucking" reinstated one lost comment of yours and you might not be aware of, but WP is not censored so my "fucking" remark is covered and allowed by policy and you have to deal with it. But enough now. I'm getting too attached (just like you although it's still a long way for me...) and, I still didn't had dinner and have to expect my punishment for that later. So bye.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (comment made before the above post was changed)
 * Guidelines cannot be created at an article. If you have questions about how NPOV work, please try WP:NPOVN. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Referring to the whole section now gone from view, please stop with these attempts to remove and disrupt. Given your repeated efforts to remove my comments from this talk page in violation of Talk page policy, I am not the one who is doing something wrong here. That honor belongs to you. Beyond that I have nothing further to say to you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I will add that The Magnificent Clean Keeper also repeatedly removed my comments here in violation of Talk page policy and also used the page for personal attacks, which is clearly against Talk page policy. Please stop with this nonsense and try to focus on dealing with the article in a reasonable and mature manner. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You should at least consider that you're the one doing something "wrong" here and might be "disruptive.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Meta discussions are usually not welcome and mostly not appropriate for and at talkpages. There are specific pages to discuss any kind of policy which then can be applied to articles if there is a policy change and an outcome that affects articles like this one. Unless this happens, we are obliged to stick with and apply existing policies.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See related topic below: . -Wikid77 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2010

Media opinions about the fairness of the trial
This is continuing the discussion from above about proposed changes to the media section.

The problem we are trying to solve is that some editors are concerned with the statement: "one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise." The concern is that this could give the impression that Amanda's lawyer agreed with the outcome of the trial. The opposing view is that it is sourced and it was not retracted, so to think that it was a misquotation or something else seems like WP:OR.

My proposed solution was to try and set the statement in a context which showed that a range of views was expressed in the media, including this one. I suggested:
 * Media portrayals of the fairness of Knox and Sollecito's trial included a range of views. Alex Wade, writing in The Times was critical, saying "If by some cruel miracle a British judge had found himself presiding over 12 good men and true, whose task it was to determine whether Knox was innocent of Kercher’s murder, it is inconceivable that he would not have made strong, telling directions to acquit". On the other hand, Libby Purves, writing in the same newspaper, said "both evidence and reconstruction look pretty convincing" and described the American campaign for Amanda Knox as "almost libellously critical of the Italian court". The U.S. media have increasingly focused on the Knox family's campaign to free their daughter, including criticism of the Italian court. By contrast, the Kercher family have made clear their views that the trial was fair, but have otherwise avoided much media attention. Reported views of Knox's lawyers include a piece in the New York Times, during Knox and Sollecito's trial which reported, "Ms. Knox is often portrayed as an innocent girl unwittingly caught up in the Kafkaesque Italian justice system. But even one of her lawyers, Carlo Dalla Vedova, said that he believed the trial was fair. He added that he “disagreed” with news media coverage that depicted it otherwise." On the other hand, at the filing of appeals, Knox's lawyers have been quoted as saying that the original case was "botched" by the prosecution.

I would further propose that some other changes would be made to accommodate this paragraph, including removal of the sentence about the botched case from the "defence points of appeal" section (we don't need it twice) and cutting some other parts of the "media coverage in general" section. Bluewave (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would remove the stuff about "trial was fair" as just bizarre (per common sense), in the vein of a similar absurdity: "Knox said she was glad to be convicted" (not true). Also, the article cannot contain unprovable generalities, such as "all decent people believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent" or "the American campaign for Amanda Knox" because those are impossible to prove. IMHO, I suggest we focus on more results-oriented aspects:
 * Describe other potential suspects, or criteria to profile them.
 * Return to an NPOV focus on the forensic evidence, which is a more neutral topic, rather than wildly assessing guilt or innocence.
 * Prepare the article to state Knox or Sollecito was found "not guilty" in the appellate trial(s).
 * Avoid embellishing rumors that someone said "trial was fair" or "Elvis seen on back row" or "alien sex-fiends winked at Mignini".
 * Perhaps quote experts saying this case is an "embarrassment" for Italy, lest people think that people in Italy do not see the absurdities of the case. It is unfair to imply that all Italians act that way.
 * Please consider the potential intelligent readers, who would gag on tabloid remarks such as "house thoroughly cleaned with bleach" (or similar, when no one choked on chlorine fumes and no fabrics had bleached spots). Some of the more sophisticated readers have been so outraged that they even logged complaints on this talk-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikid, the section of the article that we're talking about is the one about media coverage. This is one part of the article where I would be in favour of including opinion, because a lot of the media coverage includes opinion. I agree that we generally shouldn't include opinion in the rest of the article. Are you suggesting that we completely remove the section about media portrayals? Bluewave (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinions are POV themselves and to balance them to achieve a NPOV within this article's section we ought to include what a RS is saying, including what they say one lawyer said about the trial. And talking about "common sense", he was not talking about the result but the trial itself. We already addressed this here.


 * this thread might be of interest, too; Especially this part/comment of mine:"Knox's parents can speak in Amanda's support but not on her behalf. Only Knox herself and her lawyer(s) can "clarify" and/or "deny"/dispute things she said and haven't done so to my knowledge.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)".


 * I would like to suggest to apply Bluewave's proposal to the article and take it from there, refining it step by step, adding/changing little by little at the article while always placing the reason here at talk to be discussed. Let's try the wp:BRD approach while leaving the initial edit (and I mean Bluewave's proposal by that) at the article. Maybe we get somewhere this way, and if not, no harm is done.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely NOT! Bluewave's proposal to remove ALL of the text that I added and replace it with material that virtually eliminates the US view is not acceptable in the least. This new proposal eliminates the US media's perspective almost entirely and replaces it with one biased sentence. Then to add insult to injury it includes a clearly misleading alleged quote/misquote from Knox's lawyer. This is the complete opposite of NPOV. This is slanting the article to water down the notable response of the US media, which is highly critical of the case and the foreign media's handling of it. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Z.: Just to clarify, the text you've added is not yours as anyone's text/edits are not theirs from the moment they push the send button and can be changed or deleted at any time. What we're looking for is starting a compromise that at the end suits most editors by consensus, you included; But you can't just always say "nay" to any editing to "your text". That is not how WP works. Why don't you propose an alternative text to Bluewave's so we can work on it?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The text that is already there is much fairer, more accurate, more diverse:

The case has received extensive media coverage in Italy, Britain and the United States, with Knox receiving significantly more attention than Sollecito or Guede.[196] Knox has been portrayed in some articles as a femme fatale who took part in killing her friend in a sex game[196] and alternatively as an innocent young girl caught up in unjustified court proceedings in a foreign country.[15][197] Following the crime, Knox's MySpace website became the subject of media scrunity.[198][199]

Appearing on the U.S. television show Larry King Live, prominent New York lawyer John Q. Kelly said: "This case is probably the most egregious international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen."[200]

Peter Popham wrote an opinion piece for The Independent in which he raised doubts about the evidence against Knox and Sollecito and claimed that the prosecution's leaking of details about the case to the media was intended to prejudice public opinion and "makes miscarriages of justice horribly likely".[201] Timothy Egan wrote in the New York Times that the Italian media frenzy and tabloid sensationalism against Knox had tainted public perceptions of her.[202]

Knox's family has claimed that she was convicted because of a wider culture clash.[203] Italy's judicial process was criticised by Knox's supporters.[204] The Knox family engaged the services of a Seattle-based public relations firm in order to counter what they perceived as a media bias against her.[205]

Anne Bremner, spokeswoman for the "Friends of Amanda" support group, criticised the Italian media for its presentation of the case against Knox.[206] Bremmer stated that the "character assassination" directed against Knox by the Italian media had impaired her chance of obtaining a fair trial because the jury had not been sequestered and was exposed to such sensationalized reporting of the case.[207]

Andrea Vogt, who has covered the story for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, said: “In the US media, Knox was largely portrayed as the innocent American abroad being railroaded in a corrupt foreign system. In Europe, she was the sex-crazed diabolical vixen trying to get away with murder. Those covering this story in Perugia for the last two years recognise that neither portrayal is accurate. The case is more complex, with the truth buried beneath all those stereotypes.”

The Italian newspaper La Stampa described Knox's media appeal by saying that she had "the face of an angel – but the eyes of a killer".[75][208] The BBC spoke of "feverish media coverage", describing Knox as "that most-loved of villains – the middle-class monster whose appearance hides a diabolical soul."[75] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not really happy with everything in Bluewaves proposal but it would be a start to work this section out. You say that "The text that is already there is much fairer, more accurate, more diverse:...". I'd say, it's way to much wording, not more or less fair than the latest proposed one and too much diversity can be "shot in the foot" and unneeded in a WP entry as readers can get detailed information thru google and else and the links provided here if they choose so. We're simply not the place for a collection of all available random information and links.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to go ahead and imply Bluewave's proposal to the article yet I won't do this w/o some consensus. By now there is one clear "nay", Bluewave, as being the proposer can be count as a "yay" and I myself of course will go for it as the indicator. Can we get some clear "votes" for or against it to establish a possible consensus?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be a conditional "Yay" from me. On the condition, that we will keep working on it to improve it even further. Akuram (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The condition "that we will keep working on it to improve it even further" is a given and I would like to reinforce it in case I didn't make it clear enough in my above post.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So what we have by now (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the following:

My proposal from above: "I would like to suggest to apply Bluewave's proposal to the article and take it from there, refining it step by step, adding/changing little by little at the article while always placing the reason here at talk to be discussed. Let's try the wp:BRD approach while leaving the initial edit (and I mean Bluewave's proposal by that) at the article. Maybe we get somewhere this way, and if not, no harm is done.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)"

To clarify: (Quote from Akuram) "...On the condition, that we will keep working on it to improve it even further..."

"votes" so far:


 * Bluewave's "yay" as the proposer is a given.
 * Zlykinskyja's vote is a clear "nay".
 * The Magnificent Clean-keeper (that would be me) and I wouldn't vote against what I proposed. That means a clear "yay".
 * Akuram placed a "yay" under the set conditions.
 * Jonathan votes with the alternate spelling of "yea". Jonathancjudd (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikid77 votes "nay" - Please no crap about "trial was fair", no Elvis said Mignini did it, no UFO seen teaching Mignini new sex-game rules. -Wikid77 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The above was posted by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC) unless indicated differently.

NO WAY should there be this so called voting to delete someone else's work when the basic guidelines are still umresolved. Please focus on the big issue BELOW of the guidelines instead of distracting with the nity grity. The guidelines should guide the decisions not the nity grity decisions determining the guidelines. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we don't vote but can place a "vote". See the difference? This is a way to work towards consensus and your (quote)"NO WAY approach doesn't help at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the move and applied Bluewave's proposal to the article to work on while leaving the NPOV template in place till we'll find a solution that works for all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough of the hold-up. Let's do something and work on it.

Deleting all that legitimate, well sourced information without reaching NPOV and achieving consensus is totally bogus. The section now reads like a total lie. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a propaganda piece. Now ALL of the information about what leaders in the US media said on this issue is TOTALLY GONE. There is no way this section is now NPOV. This just shows how some people are treating this process as a sham since there was NO effort to achieve NPOV on this new section which now reads like a joke. How is this section now NPOV if there is an entire deletion of the outcry by the US media against the way the case was handled? Instead, there is now included an accusation that the US media has engaged in some kind of libel or slander for publishing its views. And the section now goes so far as to mislead the reader into thinking that Knox's lawyer does not contest the trial. For anyone to claim that this section is now NPOV is laughable. For this to be done while I am spending my time trying to get a discussion going on NPOV that we can all agree on is inconsiderate of my time and other people's time. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is an undeniable fact that there has been extensive negative coverage of this trial (and criticism of how the foreign media handled it) by the US media. Why was all that information removed? How can that be justified? This is supposed to be a section on the media's handling of the matter, but there is now no hint that there has been a huge outcry against this case and the foreign media's handling of it by the US media. The one sentence in there now relating to the US media says only that it has covered how the Knox family feels, as if the media people themselves have never spoken out about the injustice they see for themselves with their own eyes. And information about what the lawyers think does not even belong in this section on the media at all. This is just more whitewashing of the information about the powerful reaction in the US media to diminish the criticism of the trial. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I missed this discussion—I was out all yesterday evening and didn't revisit Wikipedia before bedtime! But, just to say, my yay in the above poll is a qualified one: I agree with TMC-k that more work is needed on it (and I think this was clear from the original discussion of the text in a previous thread). But I was trying to produce something more neutral than the previous version, and hope my text is neutral enough that the ongoing work can be done in the article (again as TMC-k suggests). Bluewave (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

To say that this new version is "neutral" is laughable. The US media views have been totally deleted. What little is in there now about the US media is false and misleading. The US media is not limiting itself to covering the views of the Knox family. The US media itself has been harshly critical of the case and the way the foreign media has covered it. But that information has all been removed from this section now, essentially censored. Censorship is the opposite of NPOV. As for now moving on to the rest of the article, it will just be more of the same censorship. The views of anyone criticizing the case or presenting the defense views will be deleted or substanially watered down. The prosecution type views will be deemed "fact", the defense type views will be deemed "opinion." The article will end up painting K and S as guilty, even while they are still presumed innocent, which will violate BLP. Essentially, all the work that has been done to try to include BOTH of the story will be trashed if this nonsense of ignoring NPOV continues. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again I ask you to stop generalising. The viewpoint you describe is only taken by some of the US media, but not by the entire US media. That some US press coverage criticises other (foreign) media, does not make it true by default. By the way, the US media is not any better or more honest than the European media. This is Italy for heavens sake, not North Norea. Akuram (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "This is Italy for heavens sake, not North Norea." So true and made me smile :) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Guidelines For NPOV and BLP While Guilt or Innocence is Undetermined in this Kercher Case
In this section I would like to propose and discuss guidelines for implementing NPOV and BLP in this specific article given the special circumstance of guilt or innocence not yet being finally determined in this story. This situation is a unusual in that in most encyclopedia articles the end of the story is already known when the article is written. Yet in this situation we do not yet have an ending. So there needs to be guidelines established to comply with NPOV and BLP when the guilt or innocence of the suspects is not yet officially and finally known. Anyone who has any ideas for guidelines should feel free to contribute to the discussion and any list that will be drawn up. This is not an attempt to establish guidelines for any article beyond this article, but maybe a helpful precedent could be set for others to follow, if we are successful in adopting a useful, fair and efficient set of guidelines to help us in the Kercher article. It would be helpful if, to start, those who wish to participate in the discussion would first review WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Those policies should be the essential guiding principles of this discussion.

Discussion points/opening list for discussion

1) The basics of the prosecution side of the case should be set forth, including evidence and arguments.

2) The basics of the defense side of the case should be set forth, including evidence and arguments.

3) The main defects or problems in the prosecution side of the case, as noted by critics, including defense counsel, should be included.

4) The main defects or problems in the defense side of the case, as noted by critics, including prosecutors, should be included.

5) If facts are included that are strongly contested by the other side, the interpretation or view of that fact by the other side should also be included.

6) Media from all perspectives should be included, if included in a reliable source, to show in general how the media in that country is reacting.

7) Until the judicial process is finalized, it should not be presented as finalized, but as a work in progress.

8) Editors should be mindful of the presumption of innocence that applies until there has been a final determination of guilt or innocence. Suspects should not be written up as guilty of a crime before there has been a final determination of guilt, but rather handled as a suspect or defendant.

9) No effort should be made to push one side of the case or the other. The article should be neutral as to guilt or innocence. If, however, information is included tending to show one side of the case (i.e. guilt) then that leaves the door open for information tending to show an opposing view (i.e. innocence) to be included.

10) It must at all times be remembered when the accused are still living that BLP policies apply, and that poorly sourced, damaging information should not be included in the article.

These are just suggestions to discuss. Anyone else care to add to the list? Any comments so far? Are these guidelines consistent with NPOV and BLP in your opinion? Why or why not? Thank you for your participation. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have come across some information about how NPOV is implemented in situations where there have been accusations made against someone, but the legal proceedings are still ongoing. This guidance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial&action=edit&section=5 is directly on point to our situation, and states as follows:

'''In cases where legal proceedings are ongoing, be particularly careful. Reporting on what has been said is acceptable, but inevitably during a court case some strong statements will be made one way or the other, and could be misleading if taken out of context. Try to get a balancing statement, as is done for example in reporting this exchange:
 * "Y stated that he once saw X with his hand resting on the pants of the boy when the two were playing video games... However, the boy denounced the molestation allegations as 'absolutely ridiculous' and said that nothing inappropriate has happened." '''

'''Where accusations are contested in a reliable source, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves:'''



It is not neutral to say: "Of course, she's probably lying." 

So this material is a pretty good starting point for our discussion, but needs to be further refined and expanded to help guide us with the Kercher case. I think it is pretty clear from this Wikipedia tutorial on NPOV which I quoted from that efforts to remove or diminish the defense side of the story in the article are not in accordance with NPOV. Rather, NPOV requires that BOTH sides of the story be included. So please let us agree on this and mutually draw up some guidelines that reflect NPOV policy which we can then expeditiously apply to this Kercher article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So this section I will reserve for any feedback on each the specific discussion items set forth above, which should be considered in light of the Wikipedia tutorial section I quoted. Please consider in particular the directive in the tutorial: "Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves."

________________________________________________________________

General Comments

 * *Sigh* Firstly, this whole meta discussion is pretty pointless. Remove the first two points of the list and disregard the rest as well, because this is not the coverage site or the "hourly update" of the trial of Knox and Sollecito! End of ... Secondly, I really would like to beg you Z., to stop the accusations and personal attacks at other editors, just they don't agree with you. They have a right to their opinion just as well as you have. Last but not least, In cases where legal proceedings are ongoing, be particularly careful. Maybe we should concentrate more on the very first sentence of your quote. Doing that, it is inevitable to just leave the sides out, cover the whole trial in a very short section stating basically that Knox and Sollecito got initially convicted, but appealed and are considered innocent until the end of legal proceedings. Again, this article is not about the trial or the "life and fate of Amanda Knox" but about "The murder of Meredith Kercher". This article should also not considered to be an "opinion maker". Akuram (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal within your comment sounds like a "solution" I could give my blessings for. You might want to put that thought into a new sub-section for discussion.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Note: the above comment by the Magnificent Clean-Keeper was posted out of sequence and has altered the flow) Please don't take the discussion off track by turning it into a discussion of who personally attacked whom. The personal attacks were not leveled by me. I responded only. I do not believe that personal attacks should be part of the discussion, so please don't start, as you did the other day. This discussion set forth above, including the large section that was improperly removed, was intended solely to be about the NPOV issues, despite many efforts today to take the discussion off track. This should be mature discussion about a mature topic, not all this gameplaying that went on earlier today. Enough with the nonsense. It is time for everyone to get serious and play fair. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (reply to your personal comment that you pulled of below): And enough of your false accusations. Suck it up or grow up, gosh! The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing false about it. And stop removing and/or editing my comments on this Talk page, and stop using the word "fucking" at me as you have done before, and just did again in your edit summary. ENOUGH!Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing false about that? Realy? Anyhow, I "fucking" reinstated one lost comment of yours and you might not be aware of, but WP is not censored so my "fucking" remark is covered and allowed by policy and you have to deal with it. But enough now. I'm getting too attached (just like you although it's still a long way for me...) and, I still didn't had dinner and have to expect my punishment for that later. So bye.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (comment made before the above post was changed)
 * Guidelines cannot be created at an article. If you have questions about how NPOV work, please try WP:NPOVN. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Referring to the whole section now gone from view, please stop with these attempts to remove and disrupt. Given your repeated efforts to remove my comments from this talk page in violation of Talk page policy, I am not the one who is doing something wrong here. That honor belongs to you. Beyond that I have nothing further to say to you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I will add that The Magnificent Clean Keeper also repeatedly removed my comments here in violation of Talk page policy and also used the page for personal attacks, which is clearly against Talk page policy. Please stop with this nonsense and try to focus on dealing with the article in a reasonable and mature manner. Thank you.Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You should at least consider that you're the one doing something "wrong" here and might be "disruptive.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Meta discussions are usually not welcome and mostly not appropriate for and at talkpages. There are specific pages to discuss any kind of policy which then can be applied to articles if there is a policy change and an outcome that affects articles like this one. Unless this happens, we are obliged to stick with and apply existing policies.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See related topic below: . -Wikid77 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2010

Clarification of BLP issues
This section clarifies the BLP issues discussed for this article and this talk-page. (Yes, of course we can discuss policy issues in article talk-pages, and have been for over 5 years now.) Some issues: Those are some of the issues, missed by people who won't read the talk-page archives, about BLP concerns with this article. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Avoid stating "the 3 killers" or "the 3 murderers" while the appeal trials are pending.
 * There is no evidence of a sex-game (Italian: gioco erotico or gioco sessuale) and that needs to be emphasized, lest people assume deviant acts were committed (as implied by the article).
 * We are using first-name-plus-initial for other names, because often, quotes contain first names (but not last names), so for that reason, we state "Filomena R." or "Laura M." (re-read WP:BLP about avoiding full names or birthdates of other people).
 * Put sources, in the talk-page, when discussing controversial events about a person. To talk about someone specifically in a "sex game" then quote a source at the same time.


 * I don't see either "3 killers" or "3 murderers" in the article. Could you please point it out? Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This issue occurred in prior months. -Wikid77 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We never state that there was a "sex game." the sex game is refered to twice - once "Judge Micheli, who conducted the hearing on the indictment of Knox and Sollecito, dismissed as “fantasy” prosecutor Mignini's claims that the sex game in which Kercher is alleged to have died was inspired by Satanic rites, Halloween rituals or violent Japanese ‘manga’ comics about dead vampires," and once "Subsequently, at the commencement of the trial, prosecutor Mignini presented a theory that the murder was motivated by a sex game turned violent." Neither of these statements state that the game happened - in one the allegation is "dismissed as fantasy" by a judge, and in the other it is put in the mouth of the person who said it. Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't raise an issue in your third point, but the mention of those two was totally irrelevent and not pertinant to the text, so I removed it entirely. We do not use First L. in any other instances that I saw. Hipocrite (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We remind people, when discussing names on the talk-page, not to quote their full names from sources, per privacy restrictions in WP:BLP. Some people think the WP:BLP prohibitions only apply to article text, when this talk-page is also restricted. I have added a 4th entry about sourcing BLP controversies on the talk-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You said that you were going to put in specific issues. The issues you put in were already resolved so now you are trying to create guidelines for future interactions. What issues still exist in the article, if any? Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to...
...collapse most of the recent meta threads; Or should we just ignore them for the most and finally start working on improving the article? This talkpage is there for the latter but as long as it is "high jacked" by introducing meta and other off topic threads we might want to just imply changes to the article itself till the page is "freed up" and used for the purpose intended. Any useful thoughts?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone will just reopen the thread. But ignoring the meta and working on the article will work. Malke  2010  04:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just looked back over all the discussions on this page. Two days ago, in the "we're stuck" discussion, I wrote "There are lots of cases where the current text lacks consensus, but discussions have either stopped at a brick wall or meandered into wordy diatribes that have lost people's interest." Most of the talk page space since then seems to have been devoted to meandering wordy diatribes guaranteed to lose people's interest! My initial inclination is just to delete or hide everything that is off-topic, but that will surely just start another wordy diatribe on the subject of "Bluewave trying to censor the talk page". Ideally, we need an uninvolved person to take on the job of policing the talk page. In the meantime, I think the only option, for anyone who cares about improving the article, is to take Malke's advice and ignore the meta-discussions, off-topic content and other obfuscations, and to try to focus at least a few sections of this page on the real task in hand. To be clear, the real task is not to discuss people's individual interpretations of policy, nor the problems with text that isn't even in the article, nor discussing whether Knox, Guede and Sollecito are guilty. Instead we should be focusing on trying to reach consensus to improve what is currently a very poor article. We have enough resource here to bring it up to "good article" status, but we won't at the present rate. Bluewave (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot that any uninvolved editor is immediately marked as involved by one editor as soon as they disagree with them. Take Hipocrite as an example. So no, I don't think that would work although I have big hope in MLauba who already blocked that annoying IP.
 * Besides that, I certainly do agree with Malke about ignoring meta discussions and just go for improving the article, by discussion and being bold at the article itself. That seems to be the only way out of that unproductive circle we're at.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to return to civility and rephrase where necessary
I've been out for a couple of days, but just glancing at the talk page I see may recent instances that breach WP:NPA and discuss editors instead of edits. This is an invitation to every participant to reword their thoughts or strike comments that cannot be considered helpful to advance the state of the article. I will review the talk page in exactly 12 hours, and people who cannot stick to a factual and collegial discussion will be removed from it. To those who have to clean up their acts, do so. To those who have never let their emotions get the best of them, carry on. MLauba (Talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular, the repeated use of the "F" word by a male editor at a woman editor should not be tolerated. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exhibit A.
 * Nothing false about that? Realy? Anyhow, I "fucking" reinstated one lost comment of yours and you might not be aware of, but WP is not censored so my "fucking" remark is covered and allowed by policy and you have to deal with it. But enough now. I'm getting too attached (just like you although it's still a long way for me...) and, I still didn't had dinner and have to expect my punishment for that later. So bye.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(Magnificent Clean Keeper, please stop moving my response comment to a spot below your post as if I posted after you. I did not. I posted prior to you as reflected by the time stamp on my post of 00:36 while your post is timed at 00:43.)

Comment redactedThe Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The post which The Magnificent Clean-Keeper quotes as being "below" him, was actually posted above, but he moved it. It is now located above as the first response post, where it was originally. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This needed to be clarified since there has been a problem with him inserting subsequent posts ahead of mine, which can be misleading to a reader. When I tried to correct the positions yesterday in another incident, here is what he wrote in his edit summary when he positioned his post ahead of mine again:

01:57, 13 May 2010 The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk | contribs) m (180,836 bytes) (Undid revision 361800511 by Zlykinskyja (talk)Don't fucking move my comments again. This is plain vandalism) (undo)

So when I objected to his use again of the word "fucking" he then used it at me two more times, as reflected above. This follows a prior incident a few weeks ago when he used the word "fucking" at me. I repeatedly objected and asked him not to do that. I think he did this again because he knew it would upset me because of how upset I was about the prior incident.

Also, I have been called by someone else a "bitch" and the words "cunt" and "cock" "shit" have been directed at me on this Talk page. I have repeatedly objected and nothing is done. It is as if women who want to contribute here have to put up with a gauntlet of abuse if they wish to stay here. And no, it isn't unreasonable to object to such disrespectful treatment of women. This is not the 1950s. None of this should be going on. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And who is tempering with other editors comments? that looks like you did, Z.. Any diffs of anyone else doing so, including me? Guess not besides the hot air you vented at ANI.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)