Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 22

Another invitation, to return improving the article.
Whoever is here to really improve the article w/o having any pre justice one way or the other just go ahead and be bold with editing the article. That I see as the "only" way to get some improvement after several month dealing with a POV-brick-wall. Cheers and good luck, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal Of Info From Lead--NPOV Issues
Information was removed from the lead in a manner that now skews the lead even more towards a pro-guilty slant. The information about the basis for the appeal was removed, with the stated reason being that the information was "unsubstantiated." Yet the fact that the appeal is based on the DNA and a new witness clearly was sourced in the article below. A footnote could have been added to the lead if the issue really was about the sourcing. Next the information about the verdict being disputed in the US as an unjust finding was removed as not being NPOV. That is nonsense. There was no NPOV violation at all. NPOV relates to the overall view of the article. It does not mean that only neutral views of media or public officials can be included. If that were the standard then this article should not be written at all, since at this point no one really knows what the truth is and therefore cannot know what neutral is. Thus, the information that was removed from the lead needs to be restored since BOTH the innocent views and the guilty views need to be included to have NPOV in the lead. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Partial response: POV views of the "media or public officials" can indeed be included in the article but the lead is usually not the right place for it as it should be just a short summary of the article itself. Once the article becomes more stable it will be easier to determine what should be summarized in the lead.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is SUPPOSED to reflect what the article is about. The article is SUPPOSED to be about BOTH sides of the story. Deleting the other side of the story from the lead is CLEARLY WRONG! Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quick answer: It is not about deleting "the other side of the story" even if you feel this way.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the other side of the story should be put back into the lead, and these repeated efforts to remove the other side of the story from the article should stop. The proof is in the pudding. The repeated attempts to remove the other side of the story speaks for itself. Without BOTH sides of the story being EQUALLY included throughout the article, this article will not have NPOV. That is the bottom line. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, including sides (either way and/or together) tilts the article necessarily to a POV manner, which certainly should not be included in the lead. Even if it can't be avoided in the bulk part of the article, it still has no right to exist in the lead. Please remember this article is about "The murder of Meredith Kercher" and not about "The life and fate of Amanda Knox". I suggest you start a whole new article about Amanda Knox, if you so desperately would like to include sides. I have stated again and again, that sides are not to be included in the article at all, only known and undisputed facts. I even have my problems with the media section, because in my humble opinion, the media is biased by itself and often untrue and therefore misleading in an encyclopedic article. If the removal of both sides leaves the article with Knox's "side" not beeing presented in the way and fashion you would like it, it would be time to rethink about NPOV and maybe starting an article for Amanda Knox herself. But I am sure, you will run into the same problems there as well. Akuram (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Only that Amanda Knox (like Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede) are only known for one WP:ONEVENT and an article draft like this one might be just deleted.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, but these are problems of a different matter and do not concern me in the moment. This might actually support the separate artcile: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This article we have here is already more about "The life and fate of Amanda Knox" than about anything else and if it goes on like this, we might just rename the article. Akuram (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Those (potential problems) don't concern me either at the moment since no sub-article was introduced/moved into main space lately, yet we had a "trial of Knox and Sollecito" spin-off article that went to [AFD] with the result of being merged and redirected to MoMK. As indicated here, I don't see any change to the circumstances as of today.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is that the lead should focus mainly on the key events of the case: the murder, the arrests, the trials, the verdicts, etc. These statements of events should be enhanced with a few key facts that help to explain the events: Knox and Sollecito were students; Guede was arrested because of the forensic evidence; etc. There should be no opinions. Actually, I'd like the whole article to be much more like that, but the lead is especially important. Bluewave (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very unfair, and violates policy, to take the position that the prosecution/government views are "fact" for purposes of this article and the defense views are merely "opinion" when the judicial proceedings are still underway. This article should not be written so as to convince the public that Knox and Sollecito are guilty, when no one knows yet for certain that that is true. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead mentions neither the prosecution views nor the government's views. I don't see what you're complaining about. Bluewave (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The lead is almost 100% the view of the government that Amanda and Raffaele have engaged in horrible acts like cutting someone's throat. Under NPOV policy, any damaging accusation like that SHOULD be immediately coupled with the defense viewpoint. But almost all that has been removed or prohibited in the lead. Thus, the lead violates NPOV policy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which government? There is no government holding any official or even non official view, not our government nor the Italian one.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When a prosecution is brought for a crime it is always brought by the government. The government of Perugia, acting for the people of that jurisdiction, has brought claims that A and R engaged in criminal activity. That is the official position of the government as represented by Mignini. In the US, when a prosecution is brought it is brought on behalf of a state government or the federal government. All of the allegations that are included in the indictment are the positions of that GOVERNMENT. Sorry that this is hard for you. I just assumed that everyone understood these things. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "The government of Perugia..." and we've discussed this before.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick insertion to clarify crucial basics: I have explained it before to you Zlykinskyja and will quickly do it again. The form of state in Italy is a democracy and therefore the state consists out of these three main powers: The judiciary, the legislature and the executive authority. The parliament represents the legislature, the government represents the executive and the judiciary is represented by the courts and the prosecution. So, to be clear once and for all. The government is absolutely not involved in the prosecution or the conviction of criminals. If you don't understand this, I suggest you read this article: democracy, before you claim again that in this article are any views of the government of Italy included or that Knox and Sollecito got initially convicted by inducement of the government or by its work. Akuram (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation seems all the more hopeless when the editors on here don't even understand basic information, like the fact that the judicial branch is part of the government. A prosecutor in Italy is also a judge and is representing the government/state when he or she brings criminal charges against a defendant. ALL prosecutions are brought by the government in Italy, just as they are in the US. In Canada prosecutions are brought in the name of the Queen, but it is a similar concept. I guess some of you think that defendants are charged by the Tooth Fairy, but I am sorry to disappoint you. I know it is all so hard to understand but when you look at any indictment you will see the GOVERNMENT'S name on there, as I have said over and over. But this is beyond the level of understanding here, apparently.  Zlykinskyja (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Holy Moly, your statement is quite outrageous and reflects the understanding of a police state, which Italy certainly is not. Please, for goodness sake, read some articles about constitutions (and the ones I suggested above) and do not repeat to always mistake Italy for the USA, which it clearly is not either. The government proposes laws, the parliament passes the laws/bills and the courts and prosecutors act on it and only because of the laws. These are three separated powers, clearly stated in the constitution. Any mixup of these three powers are extremly dangerous and lead to the collaps of any democracy. The judiciary is certainly no "branch" of the government and does not act, because some government official orders it to do so! And one more thing, if I am not mistaken, in the USA it states "the PEOPLE vs. someone" on the indictment, and not the government! And by the way, stop the personal attacks, if you don't have a clue, it just makes you look like a fool. Akuram (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling someone a fool is yet another of your constant personal attacks. Unlike you, I don't get my 'clues' from the television. Sure there are some American tv shows that use that term 'the people.' But in real life, not tv, prosecutions are brought by the GOVERNMENT, in the US, either the US government or a state government. Sorry to disappoint you. But that is the reality based on my real world knowledge and background in this area, having reviewed hundreds of criminal cases. But I will leave you to your tv shows. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't let that stand like that. Firstly, I didn't call you a Fool! I said, if you keep going on like that and therefore showing that you do not have a clue about stated topics above, you will look like a Fool. Thats quite different and no personal attack, which was not intended anyway. Secondly, I do not make presumptions about you, so I ask you not to make any about me. I have studied German law and some international law in university and work in the law departement of my company. My knowledge does not come from TV shows. I said I might be mistaken about the header of an US indictment, but was quite certain, that it does not state "Barrack Obama and his administration" or "government" vs. such and such. But again, I might be wrong, even so this particular case seems to back me up: People v. Simpson. That you have reviewed hundreds of criminal cases is one thing, a totally different one, what one learns from that and in which way these reviews are done. Reading books about real murder cases, which are intended to sell and to entertain, are not the right kind of "review" to extract solid knowledge from. I only presume that this is the way you review murder cases, based on the books you have suggested to include as reliable sources (i.e. "The Monster of Florence" and "Murder in Italy"). But again, I might be wrong and it is not meant as a personal attack. Last but not least, and I know I repeat myself: Italy is not the USA and what might work in the USA or is set in stone there or is the procedure in goold old America, maybe does not in Italy. Therefore never assume, that because you know it from the US system, it must be the same in Europe or Italy for that matter. Akuram (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We had that discussion before and bringing it up again and again after it was already answered is nothing but disruptive. And no, I won't bother to search for old threads for an editor who still doesn't provide simple diffs after getting more help regarding this than anyone else ever has received and still doesn't provide them even after promising so on more than one WP board. Disruption shouldn't be honored.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: In case one missed it, Mussolini is no more.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The court's ruling is a fact and based on the prosecutor's fact finding and opinion. The defense views are their opinion (unless backed up by facts which where found to be such at the trial) and might or might not become facts in the future if the appeal court decides so. Opinions are running wild here and I'm with Bluewave and others who mentioned and proposed to leave those opinions out as much as possible. Sticking to the real known facts would satisfy NPOV for now.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making my point so clear. The position you describe is the exact opposite of what NPOV requires while the judicial proceedings are ongoing. According to the NPOV tutorial I quoted below, until the judicial proceedings are concluded BOTH sides are considered "allegations", for which the other side of the story must of necessity be included to make the article NPOV. The position you stated that the prosecution view is "fact" and the defense view only "opinion" is clearly wrong under NPOV policy. No wonder no one wants all this to be brought out in the open, and the discussions below repeatedly closed off from view. Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You might seem to have some problems with reading You might want to read what I said since I didn't state that at all.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the only comment of mine that could be seen as a PA and therefore I'll strike and rephrase.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Zlykinskyja, you say that "the lead is almost 100% the view of the government that Amanda and Raffaele have engaged in horrible acts like cutting someone's throat". Nowhere in the lead does it say that they have engaged in those horrible acts. That would be someone's opinion and it would not be appropriate to the article. What it does say is "on 4 December 2009, both were found guilty of murder, sexual violence and other charges." That is not anyone's opinion, it is a statement of a factual event. It is not the prosecution's opinion that they were found guilty and is certainly not any government's opinion: it is a fact, attested to by multiple sources. Even if all three defendants are exonerated at appeal, it will not change the fact that Knox and Sollecito were found guilty on 4 December 2009. That fact is likely to remain in all future versions of the article, whatever the future events of the case. Bluewave (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

These discussions fall on deaf ears. The vast majority of editors on here do not care about making this article NPOV at all. There is a Sherman's March going on to delete, remove, waterdown a great deal of the information presenting the defense/anti-guilt/anti-prosecution side of the story and substitute that information with pro-guilt/anti-Knox/pro-prosecution information. All the while, utterly refusing to consider that these efforts violate NPOV, which MANDATES that both sides of the story be included. So this very attempt to say that only the "facts" can be included, and that the defense information is only "opinion" is just more of the nonsense and gameplaying intended to facilitate the removal or dimunition of the defense side of the case. That is very obvious for all to see. Zlykinskyja (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * NO, the vast majority of editors are trying their best to achieve a decent NPOV article meanwhile one and a half are preventing this effort.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of large sections totally unrelated to the article
There are currently a section in the article titled "Detailed forensics." It has been removed multiple times, as it appears to have very little to do with the article, and is not integrated at all with the text. Could someone explain what is relevent about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That section was the result, of multiple discussions, about where to list the major blood-stained items in the article, in conjunction with DNA samples, fingerprint evidence, and luminol patterns. Because most of the blood-stain locations come from the Micheli Judgment summary (at Penale.it), the unusual Italian phrases are included to verify against the source (which has none of the 106 page numbers, of the primary source Micheli Report). Naturally, that level of detail, not just mentioning several items, but also several items as described in the local Italian dialect, was considered excessive in the upper text of the article, hence as a compromise, "Detailed forensics" was placed at the end of the page. There have been several attempts to wikilink down into that section for expanded details, but crosslinks have been removed several times. There were 61 usuable fingerprints identified, in the upstairs flat, but only 1 for Guede (as the left palm-print under the pillow, matched at 16 points), leading some to claim he did a wipedown to remove all his other fingerprints from the apartment. Of those 61 prints, 2 of Sollecito were found outside Kercher's door, while Amanda's 1 print was found on a glass in the kitchen sink, and 13/14 fingerprints did not match anyone yet. Guede claims he also had a fruit drink that night, but none of his prints were found in the kitchen(!), and luminol reacts with fruit juice spills. With the upcoming appeal trial(s), filed based on DNA issues (and a new witness), there is added emphasis on listing the major DNA samples (perhaps 15) and their RFU peak levels (such 131-687 RFU). Plus, we have 7 or more shoe-prints in the house, and perhaps 8 bare footprints or luminol splotches. Then there is the CCTV security camera video evidence, which had been claimed to catch Knox arriving, but witnesses said she answered the door at Sollecito's residence at that time. That's why we compromised with a short end section for those details (at trial, there were 10,000 pages of evidence and witness summaries for 200? people). I have been warning folks to expect this article to reach 200kb, and even tried to split a subarticle as "Trial of Knox and Sollecito" to reduce the text by 40%, but that split got AfD-merged back. Some people, insisting on a single article, said "articles can be 400kb" and I recommended not to burden readers with a single, huge article, but they insisted on no splits, yet. When the article exceeds 200kb, then we can consider a Wikibooks entry for expanding further. I recommend: start reading every archive of this talk page since mid-December 2009. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TLDR. Could someone explain what is relevent about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end? Hipocrite (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No one can do so. This was discussed on several occasions and basically comes down to one editor who thinks inclusion is crucial despite objection from most editors. Let there be more than one (or two to be precise) who proof me wrong and I'll add it back myself.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect; re-read the talk-page archives, please. If someone won't read a reply to their own question, then I guess they have no interest in reading the prior talk-page topics to understand consensus for editing this article. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read every word written in every archive. I struggled through your response, but you never adressed the question - "Could someone explain what is relevent about this section so it can be incorporated into the text, as opposed to just tacked onto the end?" Instead, you told me about some case and fingerprints and witnesses and wikibooks and I just got bored and confused - which appears to be the goal, honestly. Hipocrite (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is important to carefully read "every word" of the talk-page archives, to remember the major details. For example, what were the 5 top TV shows in the U.S. during 2009? What is significant about each TV series, as related to the article? -Wikid77 (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The top TV shows in the US during 2009 were Irrelevant, Misdirection, Filibuster, Undue Weight and Total Bollocks. Perhaps we should have a section about the top five pizza-toppings in Perugia during 2009 and the top goal-scorers in the Ivory Coast Premier League; it would be just as useful.  pablo hablo. 08:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, for getting a good laugh there are proffessonionals (on TV) out there.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Claims of police mistreatment (Part II)
This is the current text, included here for comparison purposes (indented):


 * Knox testified that during her interrogation by the police she was subjected to a great deal of pressure and intimidation, was called a "stupid liar" and was hit on the head twice.[131][32][182] According to Knox, the police told her that they had solid evidence that she was at the scene of the murder and that her inability to remember being there might be due to a traumatic mental block interfering with her memory.[131] Knox claimed that she was pressured, with the threat of 30 years in prison, to recall suggested details.[183][184] According to Knox, this pressuring led her to make certain statements and then later to make her written declaration of 5:45 am on 6 November 2007, still with no sleep, placing herself at the murder scene and implicating Patrick Lumumba as the murderer of Kercher.[50][185] Knox had no lawyer or official interpreter present to assist her.[29] She claimed that she had been dissuaded from seeking an attorney.[186] Since by 5:45 am Knox was a suspect, Italian law prohibited her interrogation without her attorney present, so that part of her interrogation was unlawful.[29]


 * Hours later, Knox retracted some of her statements. She explained in a written note that the intimidation she had experienced during the interrogation had caused her fear and confusion.[187] Knox wrote in part: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received."[187]


 * A female police officer testifying at the trial denied that Knox was pressured, and said, she had questioned Knox "firmly but politely." [188][189]


 * The prosecution denied Knox's claims of having been coerced or intimidated into accusing Lumumba. In January 2010, Knox and her legal team were informed that due to her testimony at the trial she would be charged with defamation of the police and face a further criminal trial. If found guilty, the penalty is a fine and/or a prison sentence of between two and six years.[190] The prosecutor and/or police are also prosecuting, suing or investigating (or have threatened to do so) both of Knox's parents[191] and other individuals or news organizations for making statements the prosecutor or police consider defamatory.[192][193][194][195] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlykinskyja (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In a section above, we seemed to be making some progress towards improving the part about "Claims of police mistreatment". This went through several iterations, the most recent of which was:


 * Knox was interviewed without a lawyer present during the night of 5 and 6 November 2007, signing statements at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM, in which she said she was present at the murder scene and and that Patrick Lumumba was the murderer. In a note written on 6 November, Knox claimed that these statements "were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion",  that she was hit during the interviews and told that she "would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years".  Knox repeated these clams during her trial. A female police officer testified that Knox had been questioned "firmly but politely"  but another of the police officers present testified that Knox was so pressured during the intense interrogation that she starting screaming [but we need a source for this]. Patrick Lumumba has stated that he was also pressured and threatened by police officers on the same day.


 * In January 2010, Knox was informed that due to her testimony at the trial she would be charged with defamation of the police and face a further criminal trial.

Zlykinskyja wanted to add some cited additions from Doug Preston's book, but has not yet been specific about her proposed additions. Could we please do some further work on this section and try and achieve a consensus?

And, to be clear, the purpose of this discussion is to improve the text about Amanda Knox's claim that she was mistreated by police during the night of 5/6 November 2007. If anyone wants to discuss anything other than this, please do so elsewhere. Thank you. Bluewave (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Douglas Preston source: West Seattle Herald . -Wikid77 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * IMHO the section is just fine. By all means, if there are some concrete improvements, go for it and discuss. But if this attracts just another bunch of meta-discussion, just go ahead and put it in the article. Consensus doesn't mean turning each passage over and over until everyone achieves complete happiness. I for my part will try (not sure it'll succeed ;) to ignore the meta stuff. I may or may not edit the article, but I'll try to blank out the stuff that isn't related to the article. (Which includes topics like guilt and innocence). Averell (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Averell. At the very least, we need citations for the two uncited statements before this goes in the article, though. (These are the bit about intense interrogation with Amanda screaming and Lumumba's claim of police mistreatment, by the way). Bluewave (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted the original/current text above for comparison purposes. This should be done whenever there is a proposal to blank the current section and insert a whole new section. For some reason, people don't want to consider just what it is that is being removed from the article when Bluewave proposes to delete my work and substitute his instead. By comparing the two sections you can see that a great deal of exculpatory information would be removed from the article if Bluewave's new section is replaced for my section. This issue of the interrogation is a key issue for the defense. The readers have the right to know what happened with the interrogation. This new proposed section makes things so vague that the reader will be left without enough information to understand that the interrogation has many aspects that are highly questionable. That seems to be the purpose in substituting one section for the other, and that is not consistent with that word that is considered so dirty and forbidden on this page: NPOV. I am in the process of preparing a list of what is being deleted, and will add to this post shortly with that information.Zlykinskyja (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see what you are talking about. What text that was removed is imperitive to include, and why? Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could we also just be clear that neither version of the text belongs to either Zlykinskyja or me. The proposed version that I posted was the result of discussion and very little of it is my work, as can be seen in the original thread. And of course, by writing here, we are in any case giving up any personal ownership of any text. Bluewave (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I have stated, already, it is time to greatly expand the section about Claims of Mistreatment, to include numerous other sources. Originally, that section was quickly created to begin the topic. At first, the issue was treated as a "he said she said" dispute (when there are no other witnesses than just the 2 sides making claims). However, now, there are probably 10 or 15 witnesses to add into that section, including: All such statements are allowed, per Wikipedia policies, because they are not WP:SYN synthesis, but rather reported in single sources describing the claims of mistreatment. The current text of the section must be expanded per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NOTPAPER. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Need to expand claims of mistreatment
 * In June 2009, Knox testified they repeatedly asked, "Did you hear her scream?" and she replied no, no, and no. When they insisted how was that possible, she claims that she said, "I don't know, maybe my ears were covered." That became: "Knox put her fingers in her ears when she heard Kercher screaming" as an invented false confession (trial transcript, before asked about Guede, 13 June 2009:, or perugiamurderfile.org ).
 * Knox's father attended those trial hearings, and he confirmed her statements as consistent with his conversations with Amanda, for years.
 * Knox's father stated that a female officer linked to hitting Knox was charged with beating another suspect ( The Guardian, 12 June 2009: ).
 * One of the police officers (from that night) testified that Knox was so pressured during the intense interrogation that she starting screaming (not hearsay).
 * Patrik L. (Knox's boss at the pub Le Chic) stated that he was also pressured and threatened by police officers when arrested on the same day.
 * Author Douglas Preston, in several reports, has stated that he was also pressured and threatened by the same prosecutor, and commented about that in relation to Knox's testimony ( West Seattle Herald ).


 * Wikid, taking these points one by one:
 * The first one is only cited from blogs, which would make it difficult to include. But the proposed text doesn't include a claim that Knox put her fingers in her ears, so I don't see we really need the counter-claim that she said something different.
 * The text doesn't doubt that Knox said those things at the trial, so I don't feel we need her father's corroboration for what she said.
 * I can't find that in the Guardian reference that you quote.
 * The text says "another of the police officers present testified that Knox was so pressured during the intense interrogation that she starting screaming". What are you asking for beyond this? (And have you got a citation that we could use for this?)
 * The text says "Patrick Lumumba has stated that he was also pressured and threatened by police officers on the same day." Again, doesn't this address your point already? (And again can you help with a cite please?)
 * Personally, I don't really see the relevance of Preston's account. He wasn't present at Amanda's interview; he wasn't present at the trial; he hasn't interviewed Amanda. He is making his own allegations about a separate case. If we include his allegations against the Italian police, we would also have to look at whether they have refuted the allegations and this could all detract from the main subject of the article.
 * Just my views. What do other's think? Bluewave (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not notable - if it was, a reliable secondary source would adress it.
 * Who cares? If it's important to put in the note that MK's father repeats what MK says, who cares?
 * Unsourced
 * Already included, and unsourced
 * Already included, and unsourced
 * Should be included, as a reliable secondary source exists.

Hope that helps. Hipocrite (talk) 10:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Full agreement with Bluewave and Hipocrite. Akuram (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring the Requirements of NPOV and Vandalizing Article
The current text on the defense claims of police mistreatment, posted first above, is well written and well sourced. It clearly explains the issues raised by the defense pertaining to the interrogation. There is no valid justification for deleting this text. To remove a well written, clear, accurate, very well sourced section, and replace it with a vague, ambiguous, erroneous, poorly sourced substitution is VANDALISM.

The intention here is obvious. The pro-guilt editors (the vast majority) want to remove this section because it informs the readers that there are serious problems with the interrogation. They want that information censored. So the plan is to remove perfectly fine text, and replace it with something inferior that will leave the readers much less informed about what the defense is saying happened during the interrogation. They even go so far as to remove the word "interrogation."

This is just all part of the same pattern of trying to make the article less NPOV: 1) delete the defense side of the story from the lead; 2) remove from the media section all of the criticisms leveled by the US media against the case; 3) try to remove most of the information and statements about the appeal from the appeal section; 4)try to remove most of the information about the adverse pre-trial publicity from the pre-trial publicity section; 5) advocate for the removal of the testimony on Guede's three prior break-ins on the basis that the info is too "negative"; 6) block efforts to add information about the defense presentation during the trial; 7) block attempts to add forensic information to the story about a case heavily involving forensics; 8) prohibit negative information about a prosecutor heavily criticized in the US press; and 9) now try to vandalize a perfectly fine section on the interrogation.

This pattern is in defiance of the OBLIGATION of the editors here to comply with NPOV. By deleting, reverting, and reverting, and harassing, trying to get others banned or blocked, using obscenities, and all sorts of other intimidation tactics, the pro-guilt editors are trying to block the defense views from being included in this article. The very hostile way that I was treated yesterday, including the use of obscenities, and the repeated closing off of my text while I was typing when I tried to discuss the requirements of NPOV policy, make it pretty clear that there is an intention on the part of the majority of editors here to deliberately ignore the requirements of NPOV as applied to this article. Zlykinskyja (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond just removing the point-of-view of how Knox claimed when she said that she did NOT hear screaming (in her forced imagination of the murder), they insisted that the screaming occurred and she had to explain why she didn't hear it (trial sources above). Removing details, of that type, not only slants the article against neutral WP:NPOV but also leaves the reader to infer there is no substance to the claims, which is a violation of WP:SYNTH: misleading a reader into a false conclusion there is no evidence to support Knox's claims (not true). For those reasons, other point-of-view details must be included, such as: Knox's father confirming her statements as consistent for years; the issue of the policewoman facing other charges of abuse (source above); a police officer testifying he heard Knox scream during interrogation, and Douglas Preston saying he was similarly pressured (by the same prosecutor) as his comment about Knox's treatment ( source above ). -Wikid77 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikid, I agree. There should be MORE detail added because now even more information has come out about how harsh this interrogation was. For example, in the new book "Murder In Italy" the author states that Amanda was crying during the interrogation. The author states that the head investigator admitted to hearing her screams coming from the room. The book also states that Raffaele claimed that that same night he was "psychologically tortured" and strip searched. The Monster of Florence book says that Reporter Francesca Bene claims to have also been intimidated by the same cops when she was criminally charged for writing a newspaper story about the bloody boy at the fountain. These were things I did not know when I wrote this section, but they certainly back up the gist of that section, which is that there are serious questions about whether Amanda was intimidated or coerced. I will try to look up that new info and will post the page numbers and source here. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Edgardo Giobbi, head of Rome's Central Service Organization, heard screaming coming from the room where several officers were interrogating Amanda. Amanda screamed. "Murder In Italy", Page 145, by Candace Dempsey, Berkley Books, NY, Penguin Division, May 2010. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Raffaele's request for a lawyer while being interrogated on Nov. 5 was refused, as was his request that he be allowed to call his father. Page 138


 * Amanda was denied food, water, bathroom breaks and naps during the all night interrogation on Nov. 5-6.. Page 151

Wikid: Actually, now looking at Murder In Italy, I see that there is a ton of additional information about both Amanda and Raffaele's interrogations that could be included. So I will work on listing all that in more detail tomorrow. Zlykinskyja (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, we can use the full names of public officials+source. We've been needing a comprehensive source, written by a person who attended the trial hearings and who knows Italian well. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't call good faith edits vandalism again. It's not acceptable. Stop, now. Hipocrite (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this book contain any sources and references? It might be better to cite them, rather than an entertainment book, which I will clearly object for using as a reliable source. Akuram (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice to investigate article for policy violations
14-May-2010: This is just a formal announcement, as required by policy, to inform editors that their actions, in editing the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" are subject to review. Refusing to read this announcement will not excuse personal actions. This announcement is not directed at anyone, in particular, but rather serves as notice that Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be followed when editing the article. As typical, when requesting oversight for an article, then officials at each higher level can be expected to ask if proper procedures, such as notification of policies, were followed at each step along the way. In particular, the following apply:
 * WP:NPOV - A neutral point-of-view must be represented in the article text, reflecting all major viewpoints, including potential statements made by those people mentioned in the article. Because observed evidence represents an objective point-of-view from scientists and investigators, that evidence must also be allowed in the article. Hence, the deletion or rejection of detailed evidence, from the article, might be considered a violation of WP:NPOV, as rejecting the point of view of basic objective observations.
 * WP:NOTCENSORED - Text cannot be removed from an article, even if considered offensive to someone's religion or moral views. Even when a person's religion forbids the discussion of fingerprints, mobile phone usage, security cameras, DNA profiling, luminol testing, or news media reports, then those details cannot be removed from the article.
 * WP:BLP - In articles heavily concerned with WP:Biographies of living persons, controversial remarks must be accompanied by sources. To make an accusation against a person, or to insinuate some controversial aspect, without a source that shows proof of those claims, is typically a violation of WP:BLP. For example, it would be a violation to state a specific prosecutor was a child molester, even if accused in a source, unless that source provided solid proof of the claim. Be careful to tie such details, as objective comments in sources, rather than express them as universal facts.
 * WP:SYNTH - Stating a series of sourced facts that leads to a controversial, unsourced conclusion is violation of WP:SYN. For example, to quote a lawyer that a "trial was fair" could easily be seen as implying agreement with the ruling, which is a definite violation of WP:SYN, unless a source stated the lawyer accepted the ruling. Also, to state only that a court official was seen touching a goat in private areas, might be a violation of WP:SYN, unless adding sourced information that the encounter was perhaps only pushing the animal out of the path of movement. Be careful to provide a balanced view of events, so that one particular, controversial conclusion is not seen as the obvious sole implication. An imbalance can be corrected by adding sourced text to support alternate conclusions, in the same area of text, and WP:SYN is not an automatic reason to delete text. Ensure such text leads to sourced conclusions or to a variety of options, rather than misleading.
 * WP:NPA - Repeated insults or other personal attacks violate policy. To claim that a person's behaviour would never change, or that a person has too little experience to count in a decision, might be considered as an ad hominem attack, so beware.

Those are the main policies, or guidelines, to be sure to observe. However, omission from this list does not imply that other policies, guidelines, or local regulations can be ignored. This concludes the formal announcement, as required by policy, to inform editors that their actions, in editing the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" are subject to review. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note above: . -Wikid77 05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And now, what is that? First of all, did you or did you not make a request for review somewhere? If so, please link to that request so that we can participate. If not, what is the purpose of this? This, to me, smacks of WP:Wikilawyering - in particular, creating the impression that editors that don't abide by your rules would be subject to sanctions by "officials at a higher level". Which I'd happily ignore, only that there's still a slight chance that there are some new editors here that could take your statements at face value.


 * So to make it clear: As the rest of us, Wikid has no special powers here. He's got no powers of enforcement, he's got no powers to make "formal declarations", and there's no policy whatsoever requiring (or allowing him) to do so. There are no "higher level officials" who'll back him up. Make no mistake: The community will take action if Wikipedia is disrupted. Each and every editor is free to go to the Admin noticeboards and such places to complain. However, there will be no sanctions for disagreeing about how an article should be edited. The policies that Wikid cites above are for real. Many of the conclusions that he draws are debatable, to say the least.


 * I added this little statement because I think the above is highly misleading for all editors that don't have a hang on how things work around here. Averell (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Using wikilinked sections to balance NPOV
14-May-2010: The article can be expanded to provide more balance, per WP:NPOV, by wikilinking sections that elaborate the details about "The Rest of the Story". Originally, the extreme viewpoint, of the house seeming "thoroughly cleaned with bleach" was immediately offset by linking an opposing section, such as "Claims of bleach refuted at trial". That structure (of point-of-view-1 refuted by point-of-view-2 ) allows both ideas to appear, side-by-side, as similar phrases, but also connects to a detailed explanation: listing all the details of the trial testimonies, where 2 housekeepers said the bleach had remained unused, with no smell of bleach, and investigators found no chemical trace of bleaching or bleach-spots on fabrics at the scene.

Sometimes a one-phrase extreme claim could only be fully rebutted by several sentences, and so an equal word-count view, of the overall balance, tends to thwart adding all the necessary details to refute a claim, for an adequate neutral (NPOV) coverage. Instead, a one-phrase extreme claim can be followed by a wikilinked sub-section title which, in much more detail, will then offset the impact of the original extreme claim. For example:
 * "Aristotle believed that the Earth is flat, while Plato contended the Earth is a sphere (however, see: &#123;Aristotle view of Earth as pie plate rotating on edge&#125;)."

The initial phrase "the Earth is flat" gives the impression that Aristotle was clueless about the Earth's rotation. However, that would be refuted in the wikilinked sub-section: "Aristotle view of Earth as pie plate rotating on edge". The initial sentence is very short, but all the details would be elaborated in the linked section, of how Aristotle wrote of the Earth as a flat pie plate, standing on edge, rotating on edge (once per day), while Plato, holding 2 opposing views, stated (1) the Earth was a sphere, and (2) the sphere did not rotate (the cosmos spun about the sphere). Once those details are provided, then Aristotle seems a lot smarter, in recognizing the Earth as rotating on an axis, from ancient Greece circa 330 BC. Again, the technique is to offset-by-wikilink: state an extreme claim, followed by an opposing section title (containing the details). This technique would lead to a similar offset-by-wikilink: "They suggested the event began as a sex-game (however, see: &#123;No evidence of sex-game found&#125;)". Every time the text must mention "sex-game" then immediately link to the total rebuttal as section "No evidence of sex-game found" (containing perhaps 15 sentences about exhaustive searches which found no sexual items used at the scene). To fully offset an outrageous claim of sex-game, it must be stated that no sex books, no photos, no condoms, no restraints, no lotions, no aphrodisiacs, none of them, were found there. That is the best technique I can imagine to offset highly extreme claims (which were totally refuted in detail), and offset them every time when mentioned, using a neutral NPOV balance. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like that "technique" at all. IMHO anchor links should be used sparingly. And while all viewpoints should be reported, there is no rule that we need a "argument" - "counterargument" everywhere. Even weirder is the notion that each argument you find "extreme" should not only have a counterargument presented, but a whole section of it. This "technique" will lead to a crappy article, because it will lead to "argument" - "counterargument" - "countercounterargument" - "countercountercounterargument" - ... - ad infinitum. Your example above can easily be drilled down to: "They suggested the event began as a sex game[cite], although no evidence of this was found[cite2]." Averell (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An old git like me might not be able to have a sex game without sex books, photos, restraints, lotions and aphrodisiacs...but a bunch of 20-year-olds?? But I agree with Averell about avoiding anchor links. Bluewave (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Reword intro paragraph as more current
Lets consider updates about the Knox/Sollecito trial status, from the former wording:
 * "The trial of Knox and Sollecito began on 16 January 2009. On 4 December 2009, both were found guilty of murder, sexual violence and other charges. Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison, while Sollecito received 25 years. Knox and Sollecito have appealed, and their second trial will be held in the autumn of 2010.

The current wording:
 * "Although Knox and Sollecito, whose trial began 16 January 2009, were initially judged guilty of murder, sexual violence and other charges (5 December 2009), their verdicts have been suspended, pending new appellate trials. Originally, Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison, while Sollecito received 25 years, but those could be overturned or reduced upon appeal. Knox and Sollecito filed appeals based on validity of DNA evidence and a new witness, and their second trial will be held in the autumn of 2010.

The current wording once again includes the phrases "DNA evidence" and "a new witness" which had been removed, days ago, WITHOUT consensus and against extreme objections. Does anyone have any other recommended changes to that section? -Wikid77 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you cite a reliable secondary source on the basis of their appeals? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the "although" construction would be misleading. In English, we use "although" to contrast two facts, where the second has been a sort of "surprise result", given the expectations set by the first fact. In some other case, you might say, "although he was found guilty in his trial, he was exonerated on appeal". That would be a correct use of "although". We are not dealing with that situation, here. The filing of appeals is not some unpredictable event that somehow changes the weight given to the original trial. It is a totally predictable next step in the legal process. I don't think we should juxtapose the two things using an "although" construction. Also, saying the verdicts "have been suspended" is rather misleading (does any reliable source express it like that?). The use of "originally", when applied to the sentencing, suggests that something has happened since. The fact is they were "originally" sentenced to those terms and they still are. Presumably people know that the purpose of a defence appeal is to try and overturn or reduce the sentence: by specifically stating that the sentences could be reduced or overturned, you are drawing attention to this possibility, while ignoring the other possibility that the sentences could be increased (the prosecution have also appealed against (what they believe is) the leniency of the sentences). We don't mention (in the lead) the DNA evidence and witnesses that were part of the original trial, so I think it looks odd to add those details about the filing of appeals. Even journalists haven't yet seen the details in the quite lengthy filings, so I think it is premature for us to pick out DNA evidence and witnesses at this stage. Bluewave (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am with Bluewave on this one. Reliable secondary sources by the way, as always, are needed, especially concerning a "new witness"! Akuram (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand: contamination of crime scene
The issue of crime scene contamination has been a major controversy in media reports for 3 years, and needs to be expanded in the article. There is witness testimony of 2 people entering Kercher's room, with the police, through the area that Sollecito had struggled to break in the door, and where 2 fingerprints (outside the door) were matched to him. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you cite a reliable secondary source that discusses this topic and suggest where in the article it is best placed, and what should be added? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Without a reliable source, this would be just "hearsay" and, as in court, should not be admissible in this article. Akuram (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand: relationships between accused
The only fair way to describe the claimed relationships, IMHO, is to quote each of the 3 suspects about their view of the other 2 people. I'm thinking, within each bio section, put 1 or 2 sentences about the other 2 people, so there would be 3 viewpoints about the remaining 2, as seen from the eyes of each. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you cite a reliable secondary source that discusses these relationships and propose a specific edit? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As above, this is just "hearsay" without a reliable source and not admissible. Akuram (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand: No evidence found of sex-game
This seems to be a major problem of WP:SYNTH, unless this point is clarified in the article. To even hint that the prosecution considered the event as a 4-person sex game immediately implies a conclusion that evidence supported the idea. Few people would conclude: "Oh ya, they obviously think a sex game occurred because there was no evidence of it: no sex books, photos, restraints, lotions, drugs, alcohol or potions". Hence, the mere mention of "sex game" is a massive violation of WP:SYN and so must be balanced with opposing sourced text that rejects the notion. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that every mention of a "Sex game" in the article is prefaced by alledged and links to a reliable source. What specific change to the text are you proposing? Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are exactly three references in the article about a sex game, all three are rebuted either by the courts judge as "fantasy" or retracted by the prosecution itself (it changed the assumed motive). Hence the reason that I don't see any justification, why this section needs to be expanded. Akuram (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Expand: fingerprints & CCTV evidence
There are numerous reports about the 61 usable fingerprints, and CCTV evidence. Also, some claim that an additional security camera (overlooked) could have revealed the killer(s), but that camera was allowed to re-record before being checked. I think such details are pertinent, as to explaining the murder and efforts to solve it. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This goes for all the "expand" claims: I'm still waiting for your argument (besides "I think so") on why those factoids are so incredibly important that we need to cover them in each detail. So far, you've failed to convince most editors here. Averell (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you cite a reliable secondary source for these reports and CCTV evidence, and propose a specific edit to the article? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikid77, It's going to be hard to come up with any sort of credible CCTV "evidence", especially since Knox & Sollecito's legal defence teams were unable to gain any traction with that. Essentially, you want to say "Trust us, there was "evidence" on that CCTV but it was erased". That sort of defence would not hold much weight with a jury.


 * Who exactly is this "some" person or people that you claim "could" have revealed the killer? Sounds very far-fetched to me. Jonathan (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is even more troublesome than the demands for expansion of the sections above. This is not just "hearsay", that is downright invention now. I have not found one single source, never mind a reliable one, that states any of your claims about a CCTV camera overlooking and beeing wiped clean by re-recording and that it would have shown the killer(s). Again, I obejct to the inclusion of any of this without a reliable secondary source. Akuram (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes, and a suggestion
As the invitation to rephrase has not been followed by every party, administrative action has been taken. As an observer without any stake in the article, I believe it still suffers from an unrepairable pile of multiple layers of newsflash style expansions that have been subsequently "balanced" by similar but opposing statements. It isn't an encyclopedic article, it's mostly a log of partisan statements as they occurred.

I would suggest that this article be started over from scratch, restructured as a factual account: What happened, a brief recap of the investigation, a brief account of the judicial proceedings to the case. All of these simply listing the pure facts as found. Followed by a controversy and a media section, where the issues and the viewpoints can be explained.

Let me add, again, that even if /when unblocks happen, any assumption of motive in another party and any disagreement expressed in a personalized fashion will lead to further blocks. MLauba (Talk) 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggestion of starting from scratch. The present article is such a mess of repetition that it is difficult to tackle one section without having to address similar material in other sections. If we go down this route, someone will need to propose an outline structure of sections and sub-sections, for discussion. I'd be happy to have a go at that...or equally happy if someone else wants to! But, first, let's see what people think about the proposal to rewrite. Bluewave (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Huge fan of rewrite from ground up. Hipocrite (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Although some sections might be salvaged, in my opinion — for instance, the lead, as it is now, could be kept —, the article badly needs to be shortened an rewritten. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally someone is talking sense. I am requesting this for weeks now and would give any support needed to achieve a better, clearer, shorter and much more objective article, which would read, as someone without any stakes what so ever in it, has written it. Akuram (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree (again) about that approach. There was a discussion about this before (and I don't see any need to search and link to it) as we have a new informal "RFC" right here. I too think we should start from scratch while using the existing article (at the state it is at the time I'm typing) as a base to determine what should be transferred and included in one way or another to the then new and enhanced article. I'd suggest creating a sub-page to work on and insert/replace it with the current page the moment it becomes "superior" (and make sure, no edit history gets lost, which is an easy task, the easiest one to be clear). If there is enough support for a rewrite I could create a sub-page within my user space that anyone can edit, or we create a Murder of Meredith Kercher/rewrite/draft (I'm missing the correct prefix to prevent it to be in mainspace but someone can fix that), and link it from this talkpage and the article. My 2 cents $ . The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest an extreme application of WP:NOT principles. Before writing anything, shortlist the references to use, excluding all news media, and most certainly the blogs, tabloids, and gossip shows that should never have been used in the first place. Stick to law reviews and other best-quality secondary sources. It will be a much shorter article, but much less contentious. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be a good start IMO.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, I think this is the only way to restore sanity to this article. However MLauba's "Followed by a controversy and a media section, where the issues and the viewpoints can be explained." needs to contain the qualifier "brief" as well.  pablo hablo. 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll figure that out when we're there, I'd say.  ;)  The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After all editors (so far) are in favor of going forward with the proposed rewrite, I've made the bold move and added a subpage to my user space as I mentioned above. Again, everyone please feel free to add or even remove this page to a potential better place at any time. You can find the page here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Will that not lead to attribution issues when the amended content is added to the article? If 10 people work on your user subpage and then the text is pasted in then it will look like one edit.  pablo hablo. 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question which I addressed in part further above. To give you a more comprehensive answer: the way I've set it up now would mean that the Article in my user space won't be deleted after implied to the existing main. But I'm sure there are better solutions, I just didn't see that kind of problem before so either I figure it out by myself or, taking the easy way out, for sure there will be an editor around who knows how to manage this so no edit history is getting lost.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To be clear, if others start editing the draft, the correct way is simply to ask any admin to move it on top of the existing article and perform a history merge, an operation so trivial even someone as dense as me can perform :) MLauba (Talk) 23:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "''...as dense as me...". You're a funny fellow [not the ones eating up my brain of course] and I like you more and more and could fall in love with you if you just were of the opposite sex. XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * TMCK is an admin and can history merge. Not an issue at all. MLauba (Talk) 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, no, but once the draft is ready, any admin can move it over the article and perform the histmerge :) MLauba (Talk) 23:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Woops indeed, although sometimes, but only sometimes I wish I'd be one :). But as you, MLauba, said, the "problem" can be solved and therefore there is none.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: Being or becoming an admin would just take too much time as I would spend it mostly by blocking vandals in a "non-forgiving way" and rarely in an effective manner as I've seen you doing. Besides, I have some nasty fellows eating up my brain and have to learn things newly on a daily bases to keep up with them :) Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Never having worked on a full rewrite before, a couple of quick procedural questions:
 * Is there a template that we can add to the main article to warn editors that a rewrite is in progress?
 * Is it best to discuss details of the rewrite on this talk page or on the talk page of the work area that TMCk has set up for us?
 * Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge there is no pre-fabricated-template for this but I'll apply a simple self-made template shortly at the article. Maybe someone with more time can make it more appealing.


 * Details about the rewrite should be discussed at the sub-page meanwhile general issues might fit better on this talkpage considering new and non regular editors to this page which we don't won't to confuse with where they "have to place their thoughts and comments".The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * About the draft:
 * Please take a look at the new draft and the draft's talkpage and voice your opinion. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)