Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 33

Conflicting sources re. Guede's record
Regarding the following entry in Guede's section: "Though he had no serious criminal record at the time of the murder, Guede was known to the police as a drug dealer and had some minor drug offenses on his record." One source clearly states that he had "no criminal record" based on one of the reasons for his sentence to be cut down while the other says he did what seems to me is based on an assumption that a person known by the police must have a criminal record. The point is, and this is a BLP issue, we can't trust and use both sources by just hiding the contradiction in between them. I think we need further sources that are confirming one source or the other. Meanwhile this part of the section should be left out completely or at least made hidden till such confirmation is provided. And BTW, changing "criminal record" to simply "record" as was done is sure not the solution.TMCk (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's a big difference in my experience between being "known to the police" and being a convicted criminal. The Daily Telegraph has a decent reputation for fact-checking, but I think we should insist on further or better sources on a WP:BLP issue. --John (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And, on reflection I removed this claim from the article pending better sourcing. I notice the Times article calls him a "small-time drug dealer and drifter with a record of petty crime who according to some witnesses harassed women and stole from their handbags" but also "working in bars,... and allegedly to introduce students from middle-class families to drugs" (my bolding). Again, I don't think this provides the very high standards we need to make such a claim about a living person. As an editor here I obviously recuse from using admin tools on this article, but I would take an extremely dim view on anybody reverting this back in, and would definitely take any such editing to a central venue. On the other hand, if further sources and discussion lead to a consensus here that this material is justified, I will be happy to see it return. --John (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No complaints from me. My initial objections to that phrasing was the "Though he had no criminal record at the time of the murder, Guede was well-known to the police as a drug dealer and petty criminal by the time Kercher was murdered."  I think half of the dead English teachers in the world have contemplated returning to life to do something with that phrase.   The sourcing isn't the best, and I think part of the problem is a lack of precision in some of those articles.  Locally (for me), someone that has one or two possession convictions (minor with alcohol or marijuana) will generally be treated in a similar manner to someone with a clean record, particularly when young.  I think there was a subtle push at one time to put Guede in a poor light.  I'll do some searches and see if I can't find anything useful. Ravensfire ( talk ) 01:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Something interesting - this article includes the youth and lack of record comment, but sources it to Guede's attorney. I somehow missed that when I first reviewed it.  There's no way that supports stating flat out in the article that he has no record.  The court said they cut the sentence because he was the only one that apologized to Kercher's family.  Interesting - we may be able to toss out that part (no record), and come up with a good way to include the other information.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 02:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember thoroughly discussing this edit previously. We had several sources that said that he had no criminal record, several that said that he was well known as a small-time drug dealer, and some that said he had minor drug offenses.  Under the Italian system, this was explained as non-contradictory (getting pulled in for small offenses or being known does not necessarily lead to a criminal record.  I don't see a problem here.LedRush (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh, I don't recall that. Any chance of linking to the archive and/or putting up the sources for discussion? --John (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I did find this, but I can't see credible sources or anything resembling a consensus to include this information on a living person. Or was there somewhere else? --John (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can find many sources of vastly varying qualities. I really don't have time to sort through this again, so the following is a bit of an information dump (sorry, I hate it when people do this to me, and now I'm doing it to you).  General discussion with sources (including Dempsey's book) . More and different sources (hatted) .  Consensus for inclusion of most of the material (including contributions by Errant) .LedRush (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion in archive 30 is pretty sparse and there isn't much (or any) discussion about this specific section. 24 and 25 have some better information with some sources that should be helpful (and some that are junk).  There's a fair amount of OR/SYNTH from an editor in those sections, so I'm only going to look at better sources linked in those.  With only a quick glance, I think the no record is supportable.  The "known to police" phrase seems to reflect to sources, but is awkward and not really NPOV.  There's a better way to put this - I'll ponder and see if I can come up with something this evening.  I thinking along the lines of "no criminal record, but was accused of X by Y and stopped by A with B".  If we're going to add this to Guede, should we also need check for similar things for Knox and Sollecito?  Thinking marijuana usage.  I'm leaning to no, but being careful with the information added to Guede's section.  Worried about UNDUE if Guede has massive detail, but Knox and Sollecito don't.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Possession of pot (under certain amounts) in Washington is akin to a parking ticket. Being accused of entering into people's houses with knives is not.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Possession of pot is legal in many parts of US.RockSound (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So we should drop the "drugdealer" part of Guede?TMCk (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guede is documented to have 1)broken into a school, stolen cash, and armed himself with a knife, and 2) was found in possession of stolen goods including a laptop originating from a burglary of an office in Perugia. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You know me :) I'm generally in favour of not really writing anything about any of their pasts. "Although he had no serious criminal record at the time of the murder" didn't strike me as very good - it is a little too POV (of the line "well he was never caught, but look what a naughty boy he was"). Minor drug offences.. "meh", lots of people have them, doesn't seem relevant. The knife incident has more relevance if well cited. --Errant (chat!) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who added the Telegraph reference and the thread of discussion is here. He had an arrest record prior to the events. I added it here on Apr. 4 and you can follow the next few edits to see how the sentence evolved. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 02:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What's an "arrest record"? --John (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A record of being detained by police. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What does it look like? --John (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Different formats in different places (and at different times). In the US, the first part pops up on a monitor in a patrol car and lets the officer know that an individual has been arrested before regardless of whether they have been convicted of anything or not. The significance here is that it explains how the police happened to have Guede's fingerprints prior to Kercher's murder. Fingerprint cards are part of an arrest record. Here is an example. ⋙–Ber<b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. This may be a cultural difference then. In the UK and I suspect in Italy (anybody actually know?) such things are not a matter of public record, as the presumption of innocence applies unless a guilty verdict is obtained at trial. I certainly don't think we should base anything negative relating to a living person on reports of an arrest record; my opinion would be that nothing short of a conviction would be suitable for this. --John (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was first addressing the issue it was because the article was missing how the police made the logical connection to Guede...it is simply explaining that. An arrest record doesn't implicate guilt. I do believe it should be stated that he was previously arrested for logical reasons. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation to Hold Knox and Sollecito out as Legally Guilty of Murder
I see there is concern above about holding Guede out as having a prior criminal conviction, when that may be a BLP violation if incorrect.

Yet an obvious major BLP violation pertaining to Knox and Sollecito is being fostered in this article.

This article lede and througout makes it sound like Knox and Sollecito have been determined to be guilty of this murder. That is false. Their legal status in Italy is "innocent". It is false and misleading and a very serious BLP violation to hold someone out as guilty of a crime, and intentionally withold the fact that their legal status is "innocent" at this time. Someone deleted my edits claiming that to include their legal status as innocent was "too much detail". That is not persuasive, when that same person insisted on including the length of the sentences, which are of minor importance in comparison to their legal status of innocent vs. guilty. A reader perusing this lede and article will think that Knox and Sollecito have been ruled guilty, when that is only an interim finding and they remain "innocent' at this time.

The interest should be in presenting the reality of the situation, not in engaging in wishful thinking. Presently, Knox and Sollecito are legally innocent of the crime. That needs to be stated right up front, along with the damaging information that they were found guilty at a first level trial. RockSound (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if you are correct in your analysis: 1. it is correct to say that they have been convicted; 2. we need secondary sources which make this point. WP is not about truth.  We report what reliable sources state.  Also, the lede doesn't say they are guilty; it says they have been convicted and are appealing.LedRush (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

They have not been convicted. That is the point. A conviction is a final ruling, not an interim ruling. If one of them died today, they would not even have a criminal conviction on their record, because there was no final judgment entered before death. Their legal status today is "innocent" and that must be stated up front along with the fact that they were found guilty at a first level trial. RockSound (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But all the RSs disagree with you on this point. Out of curiosity, how would you describe their "convictions"?LedRush (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The facts that more than one appeal is permitted and that there is presumption of innocence should figure somewhere in the article. However, RockSound, Glrx was not at fault to revert your edits to the lead section on the rationale of "too much detail". What is more, in accordance with the Manual of Style, no statement should appear in the introduction without repetition and elaboration elsewhere. Your claim that lengths of the sentences are trivial in comparison to "legal status" is, for the most part, opinion - an opinion that is not supported by the majority of secondary sources, which talk of (presumed) guilt and sentences while making little of this (small, but no doubt important) difference between the judicial systems of Italy and many Anglophone nations. Yes, the initial verdicts are only an "interim finding", but on the basis of WP:UNDUE I do not necessarily agree that an explanation detailing the conduct of appeals in Italy is merited in the lead section, least of all when it entails removing the references to the 26- and 25-year sentences (which certainly are significant details).  Super Mario  Man  03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, you refer to RS's that disagree with me. Would you please provide them? In answer to your question: I would describe them as being found guilty at a first level trial. But they have not been convicted, because there has been no final ruling. Why is this so hard to grasp? The Italian Constitution makes it very clear that there is no definitive determination of guilt until the appeals are completed. Art. 27(2) of the Italian Constitution states that “the defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed”.

This lede creates the impression that Knox and Sollecito have been convicted. That is a BLP violation of significant magnitude. RockSound (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One other thing: didn't Guede also have the right to two appeals and the presumption of innocence until the end? The lead section states that "[Guede's] conviction was upheld in two appeals" before going on to state that "Knox and Sollecito are entitled to two appeals". Similarly, the subsection on Guede's appeals specifically mentions a first and a second hearing, but it is only when it comes to the text on Knox and Sollecito that the provisions under Italian law are made clear ("In May 2010, Guede launched a second and final appeal to the Court of Cassation ... This is the first of two appeals to which Knox and Sollecito are entitled under Italian law. They retain presumption of innocence until all appeals are completed.") If anything, this new information belongs with the text relating to Guede (who, after all, has gone through the appeals process first). It seems unusual that the explanation regarding the conduct of appeals is delayed until the focus of the article shifts to Knox and Sollecito.  Super Mario  Man  04:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rudy Guede has been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Knox and Sollecito have not been convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher, but may or may not be convicted at the end of their appeals. Simple as that. But these simple, obvious facts are being muddled, twisted and confused in the article. RockSound (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If that were so, K and N would have walked out of the court, free, at the end of the trial. Moriori (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not so. But this was already discussed above. They are in custody for the same reasons they have been in custody since November of 2007---risk of flight, not conviction. RockSound (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * RockSound, your response does not address the concern that I raised. The right to two appeals and the presumption of innocence applies to all the defendants, does it not? It is a general provision under Italian law (as the sources state), is it not? It seems illogical to refer to two appeals in the case of Guede while only explaining the actual processes (e.g. two appeals and presumption of innocence) later on (in the text about Knox and Sollecito's appeals). This also seems rather dubious with a mind to WP:NPOV. Either the explanation should be placed where the subject of appeals first arises (i.e. in the case of Guede - far more logical here than later in the article), or it should be completely disassociated from all the defendants, perhaps in the form of a footnote.  Super Mario  Man  04:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But isn't it only currently applicable for Knox and Sollecito? If they lose their appeals, and the convictions become final, the issue is moot and wouldn't need to be mentioned at all, right?LedRush (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there is also the aim of maintaining a historical perspective when possible, and avoiding recentism. It simply seems more logical to me to give the explanation when, chronologically, the matter of appeals first comes up. This is what I have attempted in this edit. May I ask what others think of it?  Super Mario  Man  05:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

SMM: I have no problem briefly including this info at the start of the second paragraph in the lede, so that it is clear the presumptions and processes apply to all defendants. I will draft something tomorrow, short and crisp for the second paragraph in the lede. RockSound (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just saw SMM's edit which I don't think provides sufficient clarification. I must sign off for the night, but will try to return tomorrow with something a bit clearer and crisper on these particular points. I think we will be helping the readers a great deal if we can provide them with a sharp, accurate intro that quickly lets them know where the defendants stand. After all, this is a very, very, long article. Good night. RockSound (talk) 05:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, RockSound. Of course, my edit isn't set in stone.  Super Mario  Man  05:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

For all of this... there is 'yet to be a source presented which clarifies (in relation to this case) where the problem is. They have been convicted at their first trial, this is indisputable; and those claiming they are not convicted have not read the sources or understood Italian law (they are not considered definitively guilty before the law until appeals are concluded, but they are definitely convicted). All sources say they are currently serving sentences, no source has been presented to suggest this is not the case. Every time this comes up my response is the same; "seems reasonable, do you have a source". It feels like the second half of that statement just gets glossed over. So I will stress it again - please provide a source. Without one it is a bit difficult to work on content :) (and, yes, I have tried to find one with minimal success) --Errant (chat!) 08:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's an important point. More sources would be an advantage.  Super Mario  Man  11:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agre with you, Errant. Technically, Amanda and Raffaele are still presumed not guilty and will be so considered until a final judgement has been passed. Article 650 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure states that only irrevocable convictions can be eseguite (enforced); art. 648 lists the cases when a judgement can be considered irrevocable. In this case, Amanda and Raffaele's convictions are not;therefore, the are still considered not guilty, meaning that they are not serving their sentences yet, that the burden of proof is still on the prosecution and that, if the statute of limitation were to expire (which, in this case, is highly improbable), they would be acquitted. To describe them as guilty, then, would definitely be a BLP-vio; to say that a Court of law has convicted them (and they are appealing), on the other hand, is not, because that's merely the description of an easily proveable historical event. The appellate court may uphold (confermare), quash (annullare) or modify (modificare) the original judgement, but this does not change the fact that the Corte d'Assise has convicted them. Furthermore, they are not yet serving their sentences. Usually, at this stage, a defendant is still free and will be gaoled only after his conviction has become irrevocable, unless it has been deemed appropriate that he be kept in custodia cautelare (pre-trial detention, you'd call it). In this case, it was concluded that Amanda and Raffaele were flight risk and it was feared that they might committ other crimes and, so, they were remanded in custody; in fact, they could be released at any time, if a Judge deemed that it is no longer necessary to keep them in gaol, because they're no longer a flight risk. As a side note, the summary proceeding aimed at determining if pre-trial detention is warranted is called processo cautelare and it involves the Judge for the Preliminary Investigations (or the Judge of the Preliminary Hearing or the trial Judge), whose order can be appealed before the Tribunale del Riesame and, then, before the Court of Cassation (due to art. 111 of the Italian Constitution, which states that Appeals to the Court of Cassation in cases of violations of the law are always allowed against sentences and against measures on personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courts.); this isn't the same kind of appeal that would follow a judgement passed by a Court of Appeal, even thought the deciding body is the same, which can cause a bit of confusion. One more thing, If one of them died today, they would not even have a criminal conviction on their record, because there was no final judgment entered before death, this is correct, under art. 69 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure: if a defendant dies before a final judgement has been passed, the trial judge must pass a sentenza di non doversi procedere per estinzione del reato (which is not a not-guilty verdict, but the criminal record of the deceased remains clean, because this second judgement would substitute that of the first Court). I know that all this is just WP:OR and, probably, WP:SYNTH for the moment, but I have very little time these days to look for sources (especially ones in English); I just hope this can help clarify things a bit. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I provided this English language source higher up the page. This issue is being covered in two places: Presumption of innocence means that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law (Art. 6 (2) ECHR). The presumption of innocence is also codified in Art. 27(2) of the Italian Constitution, which states that “the defendant is not considered guilty until final judgement is passed”.  The document is a PDF. This part is on page 22 of the PDF. The title is: "Pre-trial Detention in the European Union - An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU - A.M. van Kalmthout, M.M. Knapen, C. Morgenstern (eds.) ISBN: 978-90-5850-524-8 The web address is - http://ec.europa.eu/justice/doc_centre/criminal/procedural/doc/chapter_15_Italy_en.pdf  As I stated above, the Italian Constitution must be considered a reliable source.  Defendants who are still going through the trials process have a different name - "imputato" - from those with convictions confirmed and they are kept in different prisons (or are still at liberty, like Mignini).  Just because this principle is ignored and misunderstood in the English language media, that is no reason for Wikipedia to add to the confusion.  BLP considerations require that Knox and Sollecito's current legal status should be correctly described. NigelPScott (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Nigel. It is not possible for a person to be deemed innocent of a crime and yet be convicted of a crime at the same time. The person is either convicted or not guilty, but cannot be both. Since the Italian Constitution makes it clear that Knox and Sollecito are presently not guilty of the crime, this absolutely must be made clear in the lede to avoid BLP violations. RockSound (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So how exactly do you propose presenting the fact that an Italian court convicted them? Once gain; ''do you have a source that details this information about them not being "finally guilty", convicted or serving sentences. --Errant (chat!) 20:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Another issue here is that there is an attempt to use Italian law to justify BLP violations. That doesn't work as Italian law has no jurisdiction here. The only laws that count in that regard are the laws of the United States and the laws of Florida which is where the Wikimedia servers are located. Within the US, someone could write an article calling Knox & Sollecito murderers and they may present the findings of the court ruling as fact because that is what has prevailed so far. It does not matter that an appeal is ongoing. The author would not be guilty of libel because they would be reporting what the court has said. There is no valid civil or criminal legal recourse against the author or publisher. Italian law may not be used to justify BLP issues here. If the court makes new rulings then we can revisit to make corrections.

( Archive note: RockSound had interjected a perceived legal threat here which was subsequently removed; Ravensfire's response to RockSound remains bisecting Berean Hunter's statement. )


 * Per no legal threats, please strike out your comment immediately.  I will also be leaving this request on your user page.  Making or implying legal actions in an attempt to intimidate editors is absolutely unacceptable.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do believe that it may be worthy of mentioning this interesting fact in the Trials/Appeals section that they are presumed innocent while the appellate process is ongoing under the Italian legal system. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I too believe so and wonder why an editor just removed the explaining bit as being in the wrong spot of the article.TMCk (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He moved it to the Knox appeals section; to be honest I don't disagree that it fits there a little better in the current setup - especially as the article it is sourced to is about Knox's appeals. --Errant (chat!) 21:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree to keep it there if it wasn't for SM's convincing rationale to have it added to the top of the appeals section as this applies to all defendants even so one is certainly past that by now, but since we write from a historical perspective Guede too had this "priviledge".TMCk (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that most editors are not familiar with the Italian judicial system, putting a section between current sections 4 and 5 highlighting the differences and unusual characteristics of that system makes a lot of sense. What's confusing to me is where the view is coming from that any editor here is saying K & S are legally guilty of murder.  Trust me, it's been thoroughly pounded into our heads by various editors that, under the Italian court system, they aren't guilty under law.  No kidding, we get that.  The article should NOT say that K & S are guilty.  However, it would be an utter breach of WP:NPOV to NOT say that they were found guilty by the inital trial court.  That's the main reason this drama-fest is going on here!  If they'd been found innocent, this article would have been done long, long ago and probably been 1/4 the size it is.  But they weren't.  Regardless of what any editor feels about the verdict, they were found guilty by the Corte d'Assise.  It is a major factor of this case and absolutely must remain in the article and in the lede.  If they are eventually found innocent in their appeals, it will still have to say that the were found guilty by one court, appealed and were found innocent.  I'm befuddled why anyone is thinking otherwise. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial sticking point and source of much of the drahmaz here; the view that to report the fact that K and S were found guilty in their first trial constitutes some sort of slur against them. This is then extended to impute nefarious motives to editors who insist that this fact be included, which it definitely should. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 08:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins
Id like to be fully aware who in fact the Admins are within this article if you can please list it. Thank you kindly -- Truth  Mom  04:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the premise of your question is. In direct terms; the editors participating in this article who also happen to be admins are myself and John. But I think you misunderstand the approach taken on Wikipedia; there are not "Admins within an article", and anyone that tells you that is what they are, well they are being dishonest. When contributing and discussing on a topic we are all editors, and can only use the tools available to editors (basically; discussion :)). Anyone who happens to be admin cannot use their admin tools within a discussion because they would be involved, which is why mechanisms such as AN/I exists to find uninvolved admins who can make a valid judgement on whether sanctions need to occur. No articles have assigned admins or anything like that, the admin bit (for the purposes of editing articles) is a largely technical measure. --Errant (chat!) 09:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence Section Reorganization
It might be better to reorganize this section. List Rudy Guede in the first part. Explain the evidence used to convict him and that his appeals process is final. Then another section for Knox and Sollecito explaining the evidence use to convict them in the MASSEI REPORT. Advise that is under appeal at the current time and use the APPEAL Documents to explain why the evidence is disputed. We could just stick with the Motivation Report and Appeals. Right now there is a lot of old information in the section that they weren't even convicted on - examples being that the body was disrobed and moved after death and the women's shoe. We have the motivation report saying what evidence was used for conviction so any other reasons are not accurate. There is also a paragraph about the DNA experts. I think that should be moved to the support for Knox and Sollecito section. There is no reason that this Evidence section shouldn't be laid out straight forward. This is the the evidence used to convict Guede and it is final. This is the evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito, it is still under appeal and these are the reasons they give to appeal the convictions. Issymo (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All 3 are on equal footing in this regard, all convicted for the murder. That one appeal is final while the other two are are not yet isn't relevant to the evidence presented. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guede has exhausted the appeal process, so putting the information there is burying it from where it is relevant.LedRush (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is relevant to all defendants including Guede and relevant in general to the crime this article is about.TMCk (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting declarative statement which ignores the argument against it.LedRush (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If mine is then so is yours.TMCk (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, no. My argument is that the appeals information is relevant to the people appealing, not to the one who has already appealed. That's called a "reason".  If you are interested in construct and grown-up dialog you might want to actually address other people's opinions.LedRush (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you want to leave out your sarkastic remarks and PA's. TMCk (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thera are no PAs, just a suggestion founded on your reticence to address or make actual arguments and your proclivity to make sarcastic non-sequitors.LedRush (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're doing little more than trying to bait other editors into arguments, this is the oldest trick in the wiki-book. It doesn't matter who has exhausted what appeals; all 3 have been convicted and sentenced for murder, so they all should get listed in the same manner. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tarc, as would anybody fairminded. --John (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, Tarc is being ironical by attributing to me actions for which he has become well known, and John elaborates on the irony by making a personal attack against me. Anyway, seeing as I am the only one discussing edits constructively, I guess the discussion is over.LedRush (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are saying their status is the same when it's not. One is through their appeal already and the other two are not. I think this section should be more matter of fact. This is the evidence - this is what they are appealing on. We can't say this is what RG is appealing on because his appeals are final, otherwise we could. Issymo (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The status of one's appeal does not affect the evidence against them. You are trying to set apart the evidence against Knox and Sollecito simply because you believe they're innocent, and wish to create a gap between their story and Guede's. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try to assume good faith and not try to project your opinions onto others. I want the information regarding the appeals to be where it is most relevant.  Period.LedRush (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Spadres are called spades here, I'm afraid. I am noting that some convicts still appealing and one being done with appeals does not necessitate a separated evidence section.  They are all in the same boat. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are obviously not in the same boat if one is convicted and has exhausted his appeals in a completely separate trial from the two who are in the middle of appeals.LedRush (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are all convicted murderers in different stages of the appeals process. There's nothing else to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Guede is not in any stage of the appeals process. His appeals are completely finished.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semantic masturbation. Call that the "finished stage" if that makes you feel happy. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This section needs to reflect that very issue. That this sentence was reduced to come to the 16 years through the exhaustion of his appeals. "Rudy Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on 28 October 2008 of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. His fast-track conviction was upheld, and he is now serving a sentence of 16 years." This is misleading in that it gives appearance that he was given a shorter time then the others, possibly due to less involvement.-- Truth  Mom  14:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "They were given sentences of 25 and 26 years respectively. Knox and Sollecito have appealed." as seen here.-- Truth  Mom  14:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

First Trial, Rudy was given 30 years, a greater amount actually, the article does not reflect or show that in any way. That is a FACT, that needs placed within the article.-- Truth  Mom  14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure the lead did say that, or at least I recall writing it, but that lead was re-written a number of times... well, for a very involved reason, and I think it simply got shunted out. No issues from me to reword it. --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong. All those details are in the trial section.TMCk (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It needs to be in the lead or, it is, and appears misleading.-- Truth  Mom  14:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter, his sentence was reduced, the cited reason being his remorse/apology to the Kercher family. Remember that this is an article primarily on the murder itself, the lead of an article summarizes what is to come. Tarc (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this: "...and he is now serving a reduced sentence of 16 years."TMCk (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "...he was initially sentenced to 30 years, and he is now serving a reduced sentence of 16 years after exhausting all appeals." Can you help reword it possibly in a way like this, which includes a few more facts? -- Truth  Mom  15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is only the lede, a summary of what the article states. I agree with the others that there isn't currently an issue, though TMCk's proposal is a good suggestion regardless as it is merely one word that still imports a great deal of info.LedRush (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc, with all due respect, the article is to be neutral, thus not allowing, emotion of the fact Rudy apologized which helped reduce his sentence, to play part in laying out the facts here, within this article.-- Truth  Mom  15:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was citing the factual reason as to why his sentence was reduced. Your comment is ill-informed and not addressing what I actually said. Tarc (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An emotional fact that reduced his sentence is still a fact and could be in the article w/o violating NPOV, not saying that it should thou.TMCk (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the sentences are mentioned in the lead, and dealt with in more detail further down the article, that would be in keeping with what the lead is for. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 15:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Cody is correct in that Guede did not apologise for murdering Kercher. He did apologise for what he admits to doing on the night of the murder, however. I did not see Cody's statement "Rudy in no way apologised for the crime" as reflecting that. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 15:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, if we include too many details in the lede there is no need for the rest of the article.TMCk (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the 'emotion' here?
 * Rudy in no way apologised for the crime, he denied all responsiblity and continues to do so. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So is this incorrect then, and do you have a source saying so? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 23:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by false? The article says he is sorry he did nothing to help Meredith as she lay bleeding to death. It doesn't say he's sorry for killing her, for the very good reason that he denies doing so. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see the point of your comment; no has said or implied that he apologised for the crime. :S But he made an apology to the Kercher family (which is detailed in the article) and is the reason for his reduced sentence. If your point is that if included in the lead it must be made clear it was not an apology for killing Kercher (as he still denies it), but for not helping her, then yes, I agree. --Errant (chat!) 13:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean anything by "false:" didn't say it. By "incorrect," however,I was looking to reconcile the source with your statement that Guede "in no way apologised for the crime". <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 13:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, you were sarcastic and hostile to Cody, and you turned out to be wrong, and you still can't bear to say "sorry" or play nice?LedRush (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm not sure I see any sarcasm, Cody seems to have got the wrong end of the stick in Tarc's comment and that has caused a little confusion, nothing more dramatic :) No one is really incorrect here. --Errant (chat!) 13:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't see a problem, that is part of the problem. If hostile jabs like this go uncriticized, the tone of the discussion here will never improve.LedRush (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you find comments and questions like this hostile, you may wish to recalibrate your expectations. I certainly see nothing wrong with Pablo's question and it turns out that he was right and (unsurprisingly) Cody is wrong. End of story, for now, and we make incremental progress towards improving the article. What's the problem? --John (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should lower common decency and politeness to a level where sarcastic attacks on others are considered civil. And Cody is correct that Guede never apologized for the crime...he apologized for not doing more to help Kercher.  That's a huge difference.  Also, I don't see why you needed to throw in another personal attack at Cody to make your argument.LedRush (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I made no sarcastic attack.
 * Actually no. If this is really your standard for a personal attack, you should swing by WP:WQA and see if the community shares your apparently (if selectively) low standard for what constitutes a PA. I don't think you will, because I suspect that you know deep down that these are not really personal attacks. Cody said "Rudy in no way apologised for the crime..." (my bolding), something which is clearly and demonstrably untrue with reference to the sources. That is what I mean by saying that he is wrong. When I say that I am unsurprised by this, I am making a judgment (I believe a correct one), that SPAs with an agenda to push often get things wrong here as they do not really understand the way we work. If you really take this as a personal attack, again I strongly suggest you try WP:WQA, or else let go of trying to label every comment as a personal attack as this won't help anybody and may only serve to underline the paucity of your arguments regarding content issues. Can we get on with focused discussion towards improving the article? This thread is increasingly pointless and is starting to resemble the notorious orange juice discussion. --John (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alas, you are not only wrong (unless you think that Cody and Pablo were talking about Guede apologizing for the crime of breaking some sort of good samaritan law and not the crime of murder, which dominates our conversations), you cannot make your argument without attacking the editors who disagree with you. What is the purpose of continually labeling other editors as "SPAs with an agenda" if not to detract from there arguments with ad hominem ones of your own?  Of course, we all know the answer to this question.LedRush (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing more to say about this. If you don't get it at this point it's likely you never will. I won't respond further to your verbose and illogical nonsense per WP:DENY. I'll see you at WP:WQA. --John (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For the lede, it doesn't need to state the original sentence. I think TMCK's suggestion is fairly decent, but I'm good with leaving it as is - Guede is serving a 16 year term.  The section on his trial and appeals covers the original sentence and the reduction in more detail, as they should.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with either. He is serving 16 years. I don't personally think it's important enough to mention in the lead that his sentence was reduced, but I've no objection if that goes in. I really don't think that the supposed reason for the sentence reduction should go in the lead however, all this is dealt with appropriately lower down. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with you on that point. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pablo and Ravensire...though I still prefer TMCk's formulation.LedRush (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅, can't see any significant objection to this in the 9 million words of discussion above. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 20:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Evidence Section - Woman's Shoe
"An additional shoe print, which prosecutors believed to be a woman's, was found on a pillow under the body. Prosecutors argued that it was the right size to be Knox's, although it did not match her footwear.[56] An expert defence witness stated that this was a partial print that matched the pattern of Guede's left shoe,[48]:367-8 that it was similar to four other left-shoe prints found on the pillow,[57] that it was not a woman's shoe size and had not been left by a man's right shoe.[57" **** This whole paragrah is a whole lot of nothing. What shoe? Where in the Massei report was it used in convicting Amanda Knox? The prosecution at one time tried to say a partial print of Rudy Guede's was a woman's shoe. That was discredited and does NOT appear in the Massei report. This whole section should be removed. It doesn't even make sense to include suggested evidence against Knox that wasn't even used to convict her. Issymo (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has posted any objections to the removal of this section so I'll delete this section if that is okay. Issymo (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Silence does not equal consent. Tarc (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting opinion (hypocritical perhaps) from someone who declares a conversation held in 24 hours between only like-minded editors as being a consensus.LedRush (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I had removed the above sentence as I advised I would above and someone reverted it. There is not a note here on who and why this was done.  I gave very sound reasoning on why this portion should be removed. I would really appreciate other editors to please comment on this subject.  Again, there is zero grounds to include the above sentence in the article.  The Massei report, which is the final authority on the evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito, does NOT include a possible women's size shoe as the reasoning for guilt.  It should not be included any more than any other outdated theories. Also, why revert something without bothering to post an objection in the first place? Issymo (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct on all accounts. There is no reason for this sentence to be there, and per BRD, the discussion should move here.LedRush (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There can be no conceivable reason to leave this in the article except for bad faith smearing of Knox. It does not form part of the case against her. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's sourced that it was used as evidence in trial against Knox and Sollecito with the defense producing an expert that argued it was made by Guede. I'm not seeing a problem here.  Evidence that's discredited isn't automatically removed from the article, instead explain why it is discredited.  That's what is done here.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely disagree. We have the Massei report to explain what reasons the court found Knox and Sollecito guilty and the Micheli report for Guede. Only the evidenced used to give them the guilty verdicts should be listed.  There are enough real reasons given in the reports without including things that were brought up at trial but were not part of the reasoning to convict them.  Issymo (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really want to do the back and forth of the whole trial? How many items would this be?  We could discuss the time Raffaele called the police also?  Why though?  It isn't a reason used to convict him.  Should we also then get into evidence for innocence that was ignored by the court?  We could discuss the ToD issues that Massei ignored. It makes more sense to me to narrow things down to the actual reasons given by the reports for conviction.  If we are going to include anything discussed in the trial this article will be about to get a lot longer. A point counter point could be given for everything at trial. Issymo (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to agree with that view. If we've got sourced information that something was presented, especially if it was then examined by the judges, showing they considered it, it should be included.  That it exists in the Masseo report demonstrates that it was considered and rejected.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The concensus of the editors who have added comments on this is that it should be removed. Could we get a neutral admin, not John or Errant, to look at this and see if my deletion can be accepted now? Issymo (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Concensus to remove? Seriously?  I think not.  Let's get an admin to decide about that first.   <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 00:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 24 hours is more than enough to remove a tag, but 4 days is totally not long enough to remove misleading and superfluous information?LedRush (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravensfire, how is this EVIDENCE as the section indicates. If a woman's shoe was evidence used in oonviction it would be in the Massei report. It is not there. Not eveything is fixed by having both sides post something to counter. This is a pointless inclusion in the article that only adds to the old out dated rumors. If the woman's shoe is to be included maybe we should start a new section of the article - Things that you heard at one time that were not included as evidence to convict. In this new section we could list the Woman's shoe, an olive thowing witness, bleach receipts, harry potter's books, washing machines and numerous of other 'evidence' that was reported in the news or presented at trial before dismissed. Does anyone consider olive throwing Hekuran Kokomani as 'evidence' against anyone? The woman's shoe is in the same category. It was discussed at trial but it is NOT evidence and wasn't use to convict them. Issymo (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Three people saying yes and one person saying no is not a consensus. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Issymo is absolutely right that too much detail from the court case would be madness - this is what the article has suffered from before. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 10:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)edited <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Deskana, one thing you need to understand about this page is a group of abusive Admins and editors blocked and banned editors who leaned toward innocence views this last year. The affect was that the article was extremely unbalanced. It has gotten better since JW appeared, but there is still a lot of biased information in the article. The placement of the woman's shoe in the article is an attempt to insinuate guilt.  Since it wasn't used to convict her in the Massei report it should be removed or moved to the new section suggested.  The Evidence section should not be difficult.  The reason used to convict the three of them are in the Massei and Micheli reports.  Why not just list them out for each person, with a short paragraph explaining that this is what was used as evidence to convict them but the appeals process is not complete. Issymo (talk) 07:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source saying explictly that it was dismissed as evidence? Or is it simply not mentioned in the reports? I think as evidence given at trial it has significance, but we could reduce the content down to a couple of lines. It is also somewhat out of place in that section given that it is less forensic evidence and more an argument over whose print it is (so in the forensics section we can say lots of shoe prints were found and detail any facts about those, and in subsequent sections talk about the prosecution/defence arguments relating to them. Thoughts? I do think Issymo has a point about a lot of face time being given to this content which doesn't appear of huge importance to the convictions, I don't support outright removal, but definitely cut it down. --Errant (chat!) 08:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Issymo up to a point, (I've no idea who first mentioned it as a possible womans's shoe, so saying that it's there to insinuate guilt is a bit omniscient). Certainly I think that the sentence "Prosecutors argued that it was the right size to be Knox's, although it did not match her footwear" adds nothing.
 * pablo, the women's shoe claim was made by the head of Perugia's murder squad, and is from the Daily Telegraph source. There's a section of the Massei report dedicated to this print starting at pg 342 going to 344.  They note the conflicting conclusions from the prosecution and defense experts, but don't express an opinion.  The report does specifically state that they cannot exclude Knox from having stepped on the pillow.  As the evidence section is done right now, with far too much detail, I can't agree with removing it.  As part of a larger effort to actually summarize things, I'd love to see it.  But pulling out only evidence that might possibly implicate Knox is pushing a POV. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's pretty much my opinion too. It would be great to see a general consensus here to summarize more of the over-detailed stuff but we can't selectively reduce stuff to suit one particular POV as this proposal seems to be suggesting. --John (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First, Massei does not use the 'Woman's Shoe' as part of the reasoning to convict Knox - "The Court, on this point, takes notice of the opposing conclusions without expressing a specific opinion." Massei pg368. Then he goes on to say that that she was NOT WEARING SHOES but was moving around the murder seen in bare feet a la the luminol prints - "to whom [=Knox], actually, one [must] attribute moving herself about the murder scene essentially in bare feet,". Massei pg 368. So again, this is NOT evidence, Massei did not draw a conclusion on who the print belonged to; he did not use the shoe to convict and also says Knox was barefooted. The woman's shoe should be removed from the article as evidence used to convict, it was not. Issymo (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is room for the shoe but not enough room to note that Judge Micheli thought Rudy deserved life (30 years). Which is of NO particular view, but fact.-- Truth  Mom  03:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From the article: "" What's your point? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 05:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There were blood footprints of Rudy Guede all over the place. There was one footprint that at one point was argued to be a woman's shoe while other experts said it was Rudy's. In the end it was not part of the evidence used for the conviction in the Massei report. Unless you are going to include all of the pieces of misinformation that did not hold up under scrutiny it should be removed. This seems obvious. Dougbremner (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug, is this addressing my question to Truth Mom? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the actual court presentation given by Raffaele Sollecito's defense expert, Francesco Vinci, confirming without a doubt that there was not a shoe print on the pillow that could be attributed to a woman's shoe. All prints on the pillow came from Rudy Guede's Nike Outbreak 2 shoes. This should be able to be used as a primary source. I understand if the link can't be used but the PDF can be downloaded anywhere and used for reference. You can also see an English interpretation here  I am not suggesting to use anything from the Injustice in perugia website in the Wiki article. I am posting the second link for the simple fact that Vinci's presentation is in Italian. BruceFisher (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mignini admits that he can't place Knox in murder room
An interesting article by the American Bar Association journal. . It is based on an article in the Sun, which looks to be a more serious journalistic report than their usual. . I would propose adding this information in the forensic section. I wouldn't think we'd even need a whole sentence; a clause should be enough.LedRush (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: What makes (in your opinion) this article in the Sun "a more serious journalistic report than their usual"?TMCk (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obvious interviews and research. No naked pictures.  Picked up by the ABA.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He, Mignini, gave a theoretical answer to a question not printed. I would be more comfortable treating the Sun as a RS if they would print the actual interview.TMCk (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As for the ABA piece, it's very brief and starts out with a headline not supported by their source.TMCk (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is routine for news reports to quote responses and not questions. This is not an interview transcript.  And the ABA report is directly supported by the source.  "During a lengthy interview in his Perugia office, The Sun asked him to explain why there was no Knox DNA in the small bedroom where Meredith was killed. He shrugged and produced his latest bizarre theory - that Knox wasn't in the room at all, but orchestrated the killing from outside. Mignini said: "Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room.""LedRush (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does he state "He Can't Place Amanda Knox In Murder Room".TMCk (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, they didn't quote him as saying that. Please make arguments against things that the reports actually say.LedRush (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a quote from the ABA piece.TMCk (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me where in the ABA piece they quote anyone?LedRush (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hah. Go pull your own leg. TMCk (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So, you make a mistake and say that the ABA quoted Mignini as saying something when you now recognize they did no such thing?LedRush (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're trying to pick a fight by misrepresenting my comments and I ignore you. TMCk (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You deny what is in plain print above? And you accusing me of starting a fight while starting a fight is rich in the extreme.LedRush (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We definitely can't use The Sun as a reliable source. Neither can we use The National Enquirer or The Sunday Sport.--John (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We can use the Sun per RS policies, though we should use them with caution. The fact that the preeminent legal organization in America is also reporting this through their journal lends significant credibility.  Of course, we can attribute the info to the sources if deemed necessary.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An interview located in a tabloid next to the Page 3 girls and sex therapy gossip columns? Color me unimpressed. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevant Sun text is this; ''He shrugged and produced his latest bizarre theory - that Knox wasn't in the room at all, but orchestrated the killing from outside. Mignini said: "Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room."'' Quite how we could present that in the article as "the prosecutor cannot place Knox in the room" is... well it would be intellectually dishonest! Unless I am being thick that is clearly presented as; he has a theory to explain a lack of DNA evidence. --Errant (chat!) 20:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the intellectual dishonestly at all. He clearly isn't placing her in the room, and has developed a theory to explain it.  It is intellectually dishonest to come to a different conclusion based on the sources.LedRush (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, we can include his theory when we present this info.LedRush (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oggi has also written about the interview. A CD of the interview was turned over to the Sollecito defense team. Here is a quote from Mignini "acknowledging that the scene of the crime have not been found biological traces of the alleged murderer Amanda Knox," says that "in principle Amanda may have instigated the murder also being in a 'other room " I agree the SUN is a tabloid but Bob Graham has also freelanced for The Sunday Times and other papers. Since the interview has been picked up by Oggi and given to the defense it could be mentioned in the article. Issymo (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oggi isn't a reliable source either, as we previously discussed here. --John (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oggi can be a reliable source, as can the Sun, , . The ABA Journal is a RS.LedRush (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why we don't sourcr things to tabloids, because they take comments like this and twist them to the most fantastical of extremes. "...produced his latest bizarre theory" is not impartial journalism, it is sensationalist junk to sell the product. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally agree. An influx of trashy tabloid-ish, semi-reliable sources is not what the article needs at this time.  Super Mario  Man  22:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Should we treat this news story from the Sun the same way? I made my point. TMCk (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no misrepresentation in this article. The ABA Journal is not a tabloid, it is a legal news source. There have been no valid objections to the content of the articles to date.LedRush (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how the Sun article "looks to be a more serious journalistic report than their usual" - rather, it appears to match the general standard of this newspaper's reporting (i.e. not high). I have little objection to using the journal source, but I am interested to know whether authoritative newspaper sources have published their own articles about the interview.  Super Mario  Man  23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ledrush, if you would actually read what people say rather than what you think they're saying, there have been quite obvious and valid objections. When the article characterizes the person they're interviewing as having "produced his latest bizarre theory", most people would see that sort of "journalism" as raising some serious red flags in terms of objectivity and impartiality.  That the ABA Journal is reprinting an article from the Sun is irrelevant; it is still the Sun, a trashy tabloid rag, at the heart. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you please point to a time in which I read what I thought they were saying and not what they were saying? It's not like the time when you quoted the ABA as quoting something else when they didn't, is it?LedRush (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "There have been no valid objections" was a false statement. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion. And even if it weren't, it still would be an example of a time where I read what I thought others were saying something than they were.LedRush (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is an invalid opinion based on nothing approaching objective reality. Do you have any other supporting reasons as to why we should include a tabloids sensationalist twisting of an interview, or can we wrap this section up? Tarc (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the use? We could present the actual recording of Mignini saying the words and it would be argued here. How long is the truth going to be prohibited from this article? The ABA Journal is not a tabloid. A credible source has been provided. BruceFisher (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Presenting this as "the prosecutor cannot place Knox in the room" is definitely inappropriate and, yes, intellectually dishonest because that is not at all what was said; instead it is an inference drawn from the comment that does not quite hold up (the prosecutor does not seem to have made any comment about whether he can or cannot place Knox in the room, only theorized on why her DNA is not present).

So; is this new theory significant enough to report. It's not doing itself any favours by being reported in the Sun :) have any other sources picked it up independently? In addition; we don't currently seem to mention any of his other theories on the murders - why suddenly this one? There should be plenty of material on the other theories he has expressed so perhaps that is the best place to start. --Errant (chat!) 08:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting a section that discusses all of Mignini's theories? He has come up with an entire list of them so far. I'm sure a section detailing these theories would get argued for days and never get completed. Mignini destroyed his entire case against Knox and Sollecito in this recent interview, it's relevant. Mignini claimed at trial that Knox was the instigator of the crime inflicting the fatal wound, now he says that she may have orchestrated the entire murder from outside the room. Is this not troubling to you? This was a recorded interview reported by a credible source. It's shocking to me that information like this is being suppressed. BruceFisher (talk) 09:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop jumping on this silly "OMG supression" railroad, it's tedious and boring and not related to the matter at hand. Or to put it more clearly; you will not get your way simply by throwing out the "censorship" card, instead try discussion.
 * On the specific issue; Mignini destroyed his entire case against Knox and Sollecito in this recent interview - this appears to be your view? Do you have a RS that makes this claim? The comment looks like another theory to me (and the Sun specifically says that it is such), in answer to a specific question. I am definitely trouble by an effort to turn that comment into "the prosecutor cannot place Knox at the scene of the crime". If he had answered a question along the lines of "can you place Knox in the room" then, sure, there would be something there. But that wasn't the situation.
 * Putting this in the evidence section (i.e. "no Knox DNA was found in the room, Mignini later admitted he couldn't place here there") is a bit problematic for me. even "no Knox DNA was found in the room, Mignini later theorised she could have directed the murders from outside the room" seems a little misplaced (because this is only a theory expressed personally by the prosecutor). But I think we could write a paragraph on Mignini's theories -with care. I mean, he has publicly announced some quite strange theories, and this seems to be tied into criticism of him during the trial. This goes back to the desire earlier to add a load of detail about Mignini; this seems much more related material :) --Errant (chat!) 09:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To respond to a comment by LedRush; It is intellectually dishonest to come to a different conclusion based on the sources It is worth pointing out that the only piece of text that says he cannot place here in the room is the Aba headline - the content of the Aba or Sun article does not directly make such an assertion. Which is the major source of my concern - the proposed content is a headline which seems at odds to the source. at the very least, if such a strong interpretation were placed in the article I think it would need to be attributed as their view. --Errant (chat!) 10:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the other articles do not explicitly make the assertion. They merely say that there is no DNA evidence of Knox in the crime scene and Mignini comes up with the theory that Knox directed from outside to explain it.  I am fine attributing the ABA language if used, certainly there are other formulations which could be used without attribution.  Errant's attempts at looking at this with a collaborative eye are much appreciated.LedRush (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What we have here is an opinion piece in the ABA, the subject line of which does not jibe with the rest of the piece nor with the tabloid it is commenting on. The reasons for inclusion given here seem to be to use it as an attack on Mignini rather than something that adds to the reader's understanding of the murder.  I do not feel the inclusion of this material would be a benefit.  That's a ssimple as this can be put. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple, but inaccurate. The ABA article jibes perfectly with the source (and with Oggi) as has been made abundantly clear above.  The reason to put this in here is partially as Errant explains above, to cover some of Mignini's theories of the case.  It is also helpful as it clarifies that there is no physical evidence connecting Knox to the murder scene.LedRush (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the National Enquirer publishes a story, we all agree that it's not a credible source, but if the same story appears in the New York Times then it becomes a very credible source. In this case the ABA article is the credible source. This doesn't seem that complicated. BruceFisher (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the example you give, the NYT would be a source for the fact that National Enquirer ran a story on something. That is all. In this instance, as ABA repeated a story from the Sun, we could only use the ABA as a source that the Sun ran a story. It's unlikely this would be suitable for our article here. No offense but this is the trouble with SPIs with strong opinions; with the best will in the world you don't understand our policies or how we make decisions here. --John (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Again with the "SPI" nonsense, once again when it has no relevance at all. It's okay, you can keep talking down to me, I know you are mighty and powerful. Now, back to the topic at hand, ABA printed it because they felt it was credible. If the New York Times printed it they would be saying that it is credible. If a credible source prints a story then it should be seen as credible by Wikipedia. If the rules say otherwise, then in my tiny little "SPI" opinion, the rules are misguided. BruceFisher (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works; a tabloid story once removed is still just that, a tabloid. They can be cited in articles if it is just for something simple and factual, not for interpretation/analysis as that article attempts to do. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a disconnect here on how the media operates? Stories are picked up and ran all the time by other media outlets. If those media outlets are credible, they won't run a story that they don't find to be credible. If a media outlet reports on a story, and they are considered to be a credible source by Wikipedia, then the stories they publish should be seen as credible. If CNN is the first to report on a plane crash, are they the only one that gets credit for the story? Are all of the other media outlets simply reporting that CNN reported a plane crash? BruceFisher (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not seeing how ABA can be used as the source here. It's essentially saying that "Hey - look at this article here!", and that's it.  Trying to slap a venier of respectability by using ABA as the source over Sun doesn't fly.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that ABA published the article because they considered the story to be credible? Do you honestly think that a credible source would go out of their way to print a story they feel is not credible? BruceFisher (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bit of a red herring there, we're not here to speculate on publisher motives. A source that reprints an unreliable source does not confer reliability. Tarc (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Either a publisher is credible or they are not. You shouldn't be able to argue the point both ways. If a credible publisher publishes an article then it's obvious to anyone thinking clearly that the publisher believes the article is credible. BruceFisher (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The ABA could have published it because it was credible, or because it was interesting, quirky, weird, or for any number of other reasons. It is essentially saying "Look at this story in the Sun" though. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does The ABA article state that it is publishing the piece for any of the reasons that you suggest? No. Keep dancing around the truth, discuss it for days and then see to it that it doesn't get added. You're doing a great job. I am honored to be on your hitlist. BruceFisher (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Did I say it did? No. That takes care of your first two sentences. The rest I will ignore, save to say that I don't have a hitlist. And that the possessive form is "your", I think you meant "you're". <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for correcting my typo. That really goes far to benefit the conversation. Keep up the good work. BruceFisher (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Happens to us all. Thanks for your constant sarcasm; similarly beneficial. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 20:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, LedRush and Bruce, the Sun can only be a reliable source when it supports the prosecution. I thought you would have understood this by now. NigelPScott (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a ridiculous statement. There appears to be nothing at all in the article that is sourced to The Sun, which is not a brilliant source for anything, really. Do you actually want to discuss anything here? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 12:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Careful Nigel, you are already on Pablo's hitlist . BruceFisher (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hit list eh? Is that how you see it? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 13:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * : )-- Truth  Mom  13:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't want to get sucked into this article; it looks like a huge time waster. But I'll offer my 2 cents. I looked over the original Sun story as well as the ABA story. I have no idea how you can go from "Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room" to "the prosecutor cannot place Knox in the room". The Sun didn't post a transcript and both stories are light on details. It would be irresponsible for us to include this in our article without stronger sourcing. Another thing I would mention is the issue of weight. I did a Google News search, and could only find 2 sources that even mention this. Given that there are probably thousands of articles about this topic, it would be undue weight to include something that virtually no one is talking about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no dispute Mignini gave the interview reported in The Sun. The tape of the interview has been handed in to the prosecutor in Perugia. Mignini does not dispute what he said in the interview. I'm not sure what the problem is here. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "" and we know this how? How can we report this information in the article? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 20:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Undue weight is another concern - if this information is essential, wouldn't a few more sources besides an article in one low-quality UK tabloid and a shorter article in one American legal journal have discussed it? Substantial extracts from the interview would be preferable, given that both sources seem unable or unwilling to reproduce a transcript of the discussion.  Super Mario  Man  20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I echo 's concerns about the amount of information that is contained in the Sun's piece and the ABA's reporting of that piece, and the weight that it would give to it if it's included in the article. Worth watching though to see if any more of the interview turns up though:"'in linea teorica Amanda potrebbe aver istigato il delitto anche stando in un' altra stanza”, e ancora che 'la polizia scientifica non ha trovato le tracce perchè non ha esaminato tutto' dal momento che 'mancava il tempo per fare una perizia scientifica a tutto campo'." Who's pretending? The coverage of it is slight, however. Given Mignini's reputation for theorising I am optimistic that some more of this interview will emerge at some point. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 23:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * CodyJoeBibby: I'm unsure why you're saying that you don't know what the the problem is here given I just explained two problems. If you don't understand what I'm saying, then just ask follow up questions.  Saying "I'm not sure what the problem is here" gives me the impression that you didn't read what I wrote.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The tape being handed in has been reported in OGGI. Amanda's lawyers handed it in. Mignini doesn't dispute what he said, he just claimed the interview wasn't an interview so it didn't count, or something like that. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So one tabloid paper has reported that another tabloid paper's tape has been handed in to somebody, and nobody else is reporting on it, and you want to include it in the article on this basis, right? --John (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't care if it's included or not. I don't expect it to be. I'm just stating that it's undisputed fact that this has happened. Amanda's lawyers are on record saying they handed the tape in. Do what you want. It's your article, not mine. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read a report on the Oggi piece too. Taking the three together, we have Mignini saying "Amanda might theoretically have instigated the murder while even staying in the other room" - which then becomes, when filtered via The Sun, "Mignini admits that he can't place Knox in murder room". Oggi adds that a recording has been passed to Maori, Sollecito's lawyer, and others.
 * seems to provide some context to the 'theoretical' - saying that the forensic examiners found no trace because they didn't examine everything, and that there wasn't enough time to test everywhere. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be arguing two different points: 1. that the ABA has distorted the Sun and Oggi reports by saying Mignini didn't find any evidence of Knox at the crime scene; 2. Mignini didn't find any evidence of Knox at the crime scene because the forensic examiners couldn't be bothered to search hard enough to find it.LedRush (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try and be clearer. What I'm saying is that there isn't much substance in the articles, but that it will be illuminating to see more of what Mignini said, in context. He has certainly come out with some interesting comments over the years. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if Mignini is saying that theoretically Amanda was in another room this totally contradicts his previous version of the crime which featured 3D animations of Amanda stabbing Meredith. To pretend this is insignificant is ludicrous but entirely to be expected for this article. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Theoretically Amanda could have been in another room ..."
 * He made a theoretical argument based on the fact that nothing puts Knox in the crime scene. Why everyone is focusing on the theory and not on the facts seems strange to me.LedRush (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Why everyone is focusing on the theory and not on the facts seems strange to me.; uh, perhaps because the facts are tangential to the matter. Mignini does not seem to have made any comment on whether or not he can place Knox in the room, he simply was asked if he could explain a lack of DNA evidence. So those are the facts; a) there is no DNA evidence of Knox in the room (though this is, again, only touched on in the article) and b) Mignini has a (rather hilarious) theory on why that might be. "The prosecutor cannot place Knox in the room" is not a fact, it is a particular expression of the interview answer :) To demonstrate how much this has been stretched, LedRush, your comment based on the fact that nothing puts Knox in the crime scene does not at all reflect the sources, which talk exclusively about DNA evidence and make no mention of anything else. I still think we can deal with Mignini's rather bizarre theorising in its entirety - I am not surprised this has been seized on a "Very Important Information" by some, and that it contradicts his previous stance might be significant. However, no source appears to have been presented which expresses this view and explains the reversal - so whilst it is fine for people here on the talk page to argue this is an about face and therefore significant, it would be OR to place it into the article in such a context. If this is significant we will see more sources. --Errant (chat!) 08:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm really trying but I just can't understand your point at all. Perhaps you can explain to me, based on what the articles say, how the prosecutor has placed Knox at the scene of the crime.  I don't see a way it is possible.  No, he didn't explicitly say that he can't place her at the crime (which is why he was not quoted as saying so), but it is quite obvious to everyone that without DNA evidence in there and no explanation of why (or, a very funny one which also doesn't technically put her in the scene of the crime), that he can't.  That's why the ABA makes the very simple, and logical unavoidable statement that it does.  This is standard reporting.  Papers don't only write exactly what the subjects say (the news would be horribly tedious and wouldn't get to the heart of the stories if this was so); they report on the events, make the logical leaps, and cut through interviewees statements and boil it down to the essentials.LedRush (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Perhaps you can explain to me, based on what the articles say, how the prosecutor has placed Knox at the scene of the crime.; Uh, the article doesn't mention this at all, and it does not seem to be related to anything I have said (?). but it is quite obvious to everyone that without DNA evidence in there and no explanation of why [snip], that he can't; fine, that is understandable content. Source for it please (no, none of those above cover this point). "It is obvious" is dangerous ground for including content :) per WP:OR. and no explanation of why; it is my understanding another explanation has been advanced by the prosecution for the lack of Knox DNA evidence in the room. How do we reconcile that against your proposal?
 * The thing is; I agree we could probably source the following words (hurriedly put together); "The ABA said that the prosecutor, after advancing a theory about why no Knox DNA was present in Kercher's room, could not place Knox in the room". However, I don't see the significance of one sources interpretation of this interview, which mentions only DNA. It's quite a broad statement - and if the point is to try and say "The prosecutor could not place Knox in the murder room" I think we need much better sources than this tenuous piece :) Indeed; it will be something more easily dealt with after the appeals.
 * I don't know how else to really put this, other than; the Sun says no DNA evidence exists (a fact we can back up with other sources). Mignini has a bizarre theory for why that might be. Another (earlier) explanation exists for why this might be the case.
 * Why does this lead to the conclusion that the prosecutor cannot, in general, place Knox in the room? I'd suggest we need a source that covers all of the material in this area (or at least is a lot less brief) to reliably cover the angle. --Errant (chat!) 14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have the sources. I don't know how to explain it any clearer.  But then again, I also don't see what we're arguing about if you agree that we could say that "The ABA said that the prosecutor, after advancing a theory about why no Knox DNA was present in Kercher's room, could not place Knox in the room".LedRush (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I agree we could source such content, I don't agree we should. It's not overly significant and that it has not been picked up any more widely makes me cautious to say the least. (and it seems next to impossible to present it in a way that properly represents the source and the context without having to write a whole paragraph). --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day, we still simply have "the ABA said that the Sun said...". There is no purpose to the addition of this to the article, it offers nothing but an opinion of the interpretation of what someone said. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also a very POV opinion that doesn't match what's in the Sun (generally not considered a RS) article. Pablo's comment above was very informative and pushed me even farther away from using this ABA piece.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing. I would not consider such sourcing to include one article in The Sun and the briefest of summaries, based on this one article in The Sun, in one legal journal. If the information were so important, there would be a greater number of reliable sources discussing it.  Super Mario  Man  16:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing" Really? No extraordinary claims were made. The article reports what Mignini said. This is obviously a lost cause for the time being. If CNN reported on this would you still make the claim that CNN was just reporting about a tabloid article to inform their readers that a tabloid wrote an article? That's the excuse being made about the ABA article. It is assumed here that the ABA just felt the need to let the public know that a tabloid wrote an article. This is ridiculous of course but the argument worked here. When TMZ reported that Michael Jackson died, were all of the other news outlets simply reporting that TMZ reported that Michael Jackson died? The examples are endless. The ABA printed the story because they felt it was credible. The fact that is being ignored here is quite telling. BruceFisher (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Mignini admits that he can't place Knox in the murder room" (from the section title) sounds like quite a big claim to me - it's unfortunate that neither source presented includes a transcript of what he actually said. Incidentally, has CNN or another major network covered this? If so, it would certainly help to allay the undue weight concerns.  Super Mario  Man  19:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If CNN covered it you would be making the same exact argument. You would say that CNN was only reporting that a tabloid reported that ..... bla bla bla. It will be interesting to see how this article moves forward as the details of this case become crystal clear. Time will fix the article. Just so you know, I never read those links you provide for me. I just don't see the point in throwing a Wiki rule into every one of your posts. Why not just have a discussion like adults? BruceFisher (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just a bit confused at how, on the basis of a tabloid article and a brief summary of that tabloid article in a legal journal, the case for the addition of this information is a compelling one with regard to maintaining due weight. Had more authoritative news sources provided more significant coverage, this opinion could change, despite what you claim. This is one of only a number of problems that others have pointed out above - the jumps in logic and intellectual dishonesty, the fact that the sources seem to conflict in places, that either little or no speech from the interview itself is actually quoted, that The Sun isn't really the most reliable of sources anyway, etc. Please refrain from making bad-faith predictions without substantiation, such as "If CNN covered it you would be making the same exact argument" - these, coupled with remarks such as "I never read those links you provide for me", surely have no place in "adult" discussion.  Super Mario  Man  20:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the interview was a Sun exclusive, how are other sources, now matter how reliable, supposed to report on what Mignini said without referring to the Sun story? I don't for a second buy the notion that the ABA Journal is simply reporting that The Sun said something. That's a simplistic and disingenuous interpretation. By publishing the story without extensive caveats, a publication like the ABA Journal is vouching for its accuracy. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but also no. Essentially that is what the ABA is doing. My main problems with the Sun thing are a) my own prejudice because it's the "Freddie Starr ate my hamster! Exclusive!!one!!!" Sun, but more importantly b) they actually published very little. Oddly Oggi appears to have published more of the interview, see below. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

A new article today about a letter sent to Terni from the author of the Oggi article, Giangavino Sulas, who listened to the Bob Graham's 2 hour and 50 Minute interview with Giuliano Mignini. The author says Mignini did indeed say in the interview "in theory could Amanda instigating the crime, even from another room ", along with MANY very interesting things. One bomb shell being that it was Mignini who decided not to test the semen stain on the pillow because the " the police could not search for all tracks." Apparently there are more articles to come out of this interview because they have only written about 25% of the interview due to space. Issymo (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oggi
Out of interest, has anyone actually seen the Oggi article itself? I haven't seen the magazine, and have searched their website, and come up with zip so far. Note that this one, which I cited and this one which Cody cites are websites which mention the Oggi piece. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've tried a Google search, specifically within www.oggi.it, for "Mignini", which (for me at least) produces 7 results. From what I can tell, none of them includes more than one or two mentions of the name.  Super Mario  Man  21:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can explain why. OGGI does a lot of stories which it only puts in its print edition, not the online version, to maintain sales of the print version. We can only get these stories from bloggers who speak Italian and have bought copies of OGGI, i.e. Candace Dempsey, who is automatically assumed to be lying on this article for unexplained reasons. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought it was probably print-only, maybe there will be an online version eventually. I'll see if I can get hold of it elsewhere then. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 22:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oggi's online and offline print are very different. Shouldn't matter under wiki's policies about citing an offline magazine as long as special care is taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources.  I have very good research resources and might be able to provide a scan if need be.  (GeniusApprentice (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks, Genius. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be good, thanks. The account from "ilsitodiperugia" had a number of quotations, ostensibly from the interview, which weren't really covered in the Sun piece. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 22:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok sounds good all. It may take a bit, but I shall do my best.(GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

The writer of the Oggi article Giangavino Sulas has published an original letter about the interview with Bob Graham on the online version of the local Umbria magazine terniinrete here. In it he refutes the claim that it was not a real interview, that it lasted 2 hours and 50 minutes with an interpreter, and that there was a planned photo shoot. He further supplies the key quotes from the article where Mignini states that he preferred the Carabiniere as being more meticulous and less emotional, that they didn't have time to investigate the entire murder scene, and that there was no evidence to place Knox in the murder room.--Dougbremner (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Convicted, guilty, presumed innocence...
Hi folks,

I am here because an editor who was blocked for editing the article made an appeal to the Unblock Requests Mailing List. Prior to that, I knew nothing of this case, and as far as I am aware, I have never edited this article or any connected articles.

I am asking for you to have a discussion on the "presume innocent" statements, which the blocked editor inserted, and which were removed.

My understanding is that although they were convicted by the jury (and unanimously at that) - and that fact obviously has to remain in the article, no question about that - Italian law does not regard them as being convicted murderers until their two stages of appeal are exhausted and they fail in their appeals.

My initial thought is that it is a good idea to mention this fact, as to ignore it could be in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV stance - to stress the guilt over the presumed innocence.

I see in the history of this talk page that the editor tried to start a conversation on this matter, but as they had no sources, their discussions were removed.

The most recent attempts to insert the statement about their presumed innocence included this Seattle Post-Intelligencer article by Andrea Vogt. The same reference is currently in use in the article (as I type, reference 109, referencing the sentence "According to the lay judges, the verdict was unanimous."), as are two other stories by Vogt from The Independent. I can see no reason to believe that either the source (it is not a blog entry, but a news story) nor the writer are unreliable or not independent of the subject.

The exact quote from the article reads:"The presumption of innocence is so strong in Italy that under criminal procedural law, Knox is still not considered a convicted murderer, and won't be, until she has been found guilty through all phases of the process: Court of Assize, where the jury just made a decision; the Appellate Court of Assize; and the Court of Cassation.

"In Italy there is a presumption of innocence until there is a definitive conviction," Carnevale said."

My initial feeling is that I would be veering towards including a mention of the "not considered a convicted murderer" even if as a footnote, rather than in the main text. However, I feel that it needs to be discussed by those who edit this article, and a very clear consensus formed on the issue. If the consensus is that it should not be included, I would be interested in reading the policy-based reasoning behind that, as my initial feeling is that the NPOV policy would seem to indicate that it should be mentioned.

Regards,  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in in tense depth recently; I think the general consensus was that it was worth noting in the article text (probably under "appeals") but not something needing detail in the lead. The Guede appeals section (the first appeals section) says Two appeals are permitted under Italian law. Presumption of innocence is maintained until all appeals are completed.; I've disagreed this is the best place for it given that it is currently more relevant to Knox... but *shrug*
 * (actually this raises an interesting idea - can we cut out a section prior to both trial sections giving a quick run over the Italian trial system - that could be interesting... maybe term it "Legal proceedings" and make a "lead" introduction briefly summarising the status of all three at this point and tie that to the trial processes in Italy... I think that could clean up content no end and make it more logical; I'll put something together later) --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Having thought about it some more, I feel that the best place for the mention of the "presumed innocent" is indeed as a footnote - you guys just need to work out what it should be a footnote to, should you agree!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PhantomSteve, you do realise that the person who submitted the unblock request to unblock-en-l isn't even blocked, right? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as she neglected to give her user name, I cannot be sure! I have requested her username so that I can look into it further. I don't know if it is the one I refer to above, but it was something which I thought needed clearing up on this page when I saw this issue.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 11:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a problem that plagues this topic area; a concerted, off-wiki effort by places such as Injustice in Perugia and Perugia Shock, Friends of Amanda. Now anonymous people who proxy for blocked editors to the Wikipedia mailing lists are getting a seat at the editing table?  BTW, the SeattlePI is an online local newspaper, Knox's home town, with apparently zero impartiality on this matter. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, the highly organized group of like-minded editors who follow almost every post by every editor who contributes to this page and exert a stranglehold on this article constitute a substantial problem to the article as well.LedRush (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Back on topic, burying the information where it doesn't matter (Guede has exhausted the appeals) doesn't make sense to me. I think the information needs to be brought up the first time we say K&S were convicted.  I think stating the text is best, but the footnote may be a good compromise.LedRush (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is scope for a concise section detailing the special aspects of the Italian judicial system. Alternatively, a footnote could be written. I am the one responsible for placing the information about two appeals and presumption of innocence in the section on Guede - perhaps it is currently more relevant to Knox and Sollecito, but this is still a general provision under Italian law, and as such it made more sense to me that the article give this explanation in the first instance where the two appeals and presumption of innocence are relevant (i.e. for Guede, who went through trial and appeals first). There is WP:RECENTISM to consider.  Super Mario  Man  13:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But by burying the information, it means anyone looking up info merely on the people whose case is ongoing will not get the info. The BLP violation potential far outweighs misplaced concerns of recentism.  And, as I said, this should be mentioned the first time someone is mentioned as "convicted" who still is has not exhausted the appeals process.  This should happen whether or not there is a section on Italian law.LedRush (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what BLP violation are you asserting here? Tarc (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "burying the information" - it is simply a case of writing the article from a historical perspective whenever possible. Wouldn't someone reading the article in section order be confused to find the explanation for the two appeals and presumption of innocence only towards the end of the page, in the Knox and Sollecito trials section, when the conditions have previously applied just as much to Guede? I think that WP:BLP is a fallacious argument here - this discussion about the Italian judicial system certainly raises WP:NPOV concerns, but Wikipedia is not subject to Italian law and is not concerned with how it defines guilt and innocence.  Super Mario  Man  16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems a little contradictory to me say that the article is about the Italian judicial system and then follow that up by saying that Wikipedia is not concerned with how it defines guilt and innocence. You can't have it both ways; if the article is about the Italian judicial system then by the definition of the scope of the article, the definition of guilt and innocence that they use matters. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment (which I probably could have written with greater precision) questions how it is BLP that is the major concern as opposed to NPOV. Since Wikipedia is not based in Italy, I struggle to see how the potential for a BLP violation exists due to distinctions made in Italian law. I do not dispute that the article should include discussion of this definition of guilt and innocence, preferably in the form of a separate section or a footnote, but the concerns that are entailed surely relate to NPOV alone.  Super Mario  Man  16:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the only reason why something is not a BLP violation is where Wikipedia is based, then it is without question that the spirit of BLP is being violated. I do not know enough about this particular dispute to assert whether that is the case, but that you imply that the only reason BLP is not being violated is because Wikipedia is based in the USA is quite disturbing to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the assertion that there was a BLP violation was founded in Italian law here. The one asserting it kept claiming that our article states that Knox & Sollecito are guilty of murder...as a distinction, our article states that they were convicted (by a court) which is backed by what mainstream sources have reported. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 17:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly I'm not articulating my points well and don't seem to be making the right decisions today. I'll withdraw that previous comment for now and consider re-phrasing it - I'm sorry that it proved disturbing.  Super Mario  Man  17:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose mentioning the presumption of innocence in the lede. The presumption really doesn't say much: if we had video of an accused doing the crime, then the presumption would still apply. It really says nothing either way about whether K & S were involved in the murder. If the appeals do not complete, then we would have a Kenneth Lay situation where it would belong in the lead because it might vacate the legal result of the first trial. (I'm not sure we have any WP:RS that describe how Italian law handles that situtation; does an appeal immediately vacate the first trial? If an appeal does not complete, may journalists still report that a defendant lost his first trial?) If the appeals are later exhausted and the judgments become final convictions, then the presumption will be irrelevant to the article. The effort to include the presumption in the lede appeared to be more of an effort to suggest that K and S did not do the crime rather than explain a point about the Italian judicial system. Furthermore, the presumption of innocence is more about the standard of proof (defendant must lose in three courts before being guilty) rather than reporting K and S's progress through the court system. I take no position on including the presumption of innocence in the main article. Glrx (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at a machine translated it:MoMK to see how it characterized the status. In Italy, there may be terms of art for the progress through the judicial system: "judgment of first instance" and "judgment of second instance". Glrx (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a summary which you may find useful. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo  22:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox own article
I'm boldly closing this; if you are considering re-opening please consider these points first: I'm closing this mostly because it has turned into glaring tetchily at each other after all the relevant points have been made. --Errant (chat!) 10:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion has begun to break down and I don't see anything productive coming from it any more.
 * There is little chance, anyway, of a formal resolution on whether Knox should have a biography in this informal discussion. I suggest a good next step would be as follows:
 * Construct a decent biography in user space and ask for input
 * Open a formal neutrally worded RFC in a more logical place (perhaps the Knox talk page) and attain community consensus on the matter
 * Alternatively the idea of a forked Knox/Sollecito trial article has better support and is worth considering (in terms of a user space draft etc.)

I want to bring it up for discussion again, isnt it time for Amanda Knox to have her own article. I think we are all fully aware that she herself has reached the notability needed to have her own Wikipedia article. There is more focus on her than the murder victim herself, it has been made a for TV-movie about Amanda Knox in person starring Hollywood stars. Whenever something even insignificant happens in her trial etc it becames instant headline news in international and americna media. So its not just an american phenomena. I am in Strong Support of an separate Amanda Knox article.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What information do you propose to include about Knox that is separate from the murder she is alleged to have participated in and the trials ensuing form that murder? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 11:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TV-movie about her, all media attention around her as a person separate from the trial and murder, more ingoing about her trials as there has been alot more information about those that hasnt been included in the Murder of....article. About her family and their visits to Italy,to all television shows they have attended, Their comments etc etc.. There is so much that can be added about Knox that definitly justifies her own article in my opinion and I stand firm at that.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, lets respect her privacy and avoid such things - nothing else in her life is of significance to report, and she is not a public figure for whom their private life holds additional public interest. --Errant (chat!) 12:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on most things ErrantX, but not here... When does Wikipedia ever respect privacy, honestly? Basically all articles have a "personal life" section and everytime Lindsay Lohan goes to court its updated etc etc.. Anyway, I also disagrees with the notion that Knox is not a public person she definitly is now wheter she likes it or not and an article about her is definitly something that would benifit Wikipedia. ;).--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Basically all articles have a "personal life" section and everytime Lindsay Lohan goes to court its updated etc etc''; Lohan is a celebrity and a public figure, her life is, sadly, of intense interest to people. Knox is a private individual; there is no other way to view her, outside of the court case she has no significance and it is a huge violation of her privacy to try and detail her life. --Errant (chat!) 14:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm but on the other hand it is a fact that she gets alot of attention like today her trial and its updates comes first on all news channels. And it is about her and her legal battle, and Meredith Kercher the victim arent even mentioned. So I respectfully disagree with you here, also we have a tonn of other crime-articles so no one can say that Wikipedia doesnt include criminal-articles. Especially in a case like this were the "criminal" has achieved world recognition, we have alot of other crime articles with women/men with much less coverage. Sorry but true, she has achieved notability beyond the crime to with a tv-movie about her etc etc...as i have stated below.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Babbaq has hardly ever met an article that he didn't want to keep, and by the comments above, he'd turn it into a Facebook page. Anyways, Knox herself is falling a little short of WP:PERP, IMO. I'd also be concerned with the tone of such an article, as the outside pro-Knox interests would likely try to turn it into some sort of online martyr's shrine. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh what a surprise Tarc comes with another funny comment. I have hardly ever seen you wanting to keep even articles which fills all the criterias for Keep so:)... deletionists are have such temper;)--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way just for the record a majority of the AFDs I have participated in has been closed as either keep or no consensus. so i feel really really good about my choices:) can the same thing be said about your record?.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You routinely vote keep on foregone conclusions, while I generally keep to AfDs that could go either way. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Knox is obviously in need of her own article, and Wikipedia does a great disservice to its readers by not allowing one. Of course, when I say Wikipedia doesn't allow one, I am not referring to its policies, which clearly dictate that she is notable and that the one-event rule clearly doesn't apply in this case. The content of the article would merely be the facts of her life as reported by mainstream media: early life and education; preparation for move to Italy, events surrounding murder; murder trial and appeals; related trials; life in prison. There are countless precedents for this type of article on Wikipedia. The biggest problem I see with this article is the one Tarc alludes to: that it would become a content fork regarding the trials. This would need to be carefully monitored, and stopped. This article should retain the most detail about the trials and evidence, and that article should have no new information in it regarding these topics. But seeing as the highly organized group of like minded editors is able to follow virtually every edit by every editor who posts on this page and reprimand and/or begin administrative actions against them for any perceived fault, I am sure that adding an Amanda Knox page would be easy as pie.LedRush (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes today Knox is in the headlines yet again. I also agree with LedRush its all a matter of will amongst the Wikipedians now. And the Knox article will and can be monitored for edits that are un-constructive etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we discussed this before, LedRush, but the idea of BLP1E is to avoid detailing the lives of people who are private individuals; it's a terrible violation of her privacy to biograph her life. Outside of this incident she has no significance, the fact that the trial is long running doesn't make a difference. Everything of significance about her relates to the trial --Errant (chat!) 14:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Knox is anything but a private figure. She is extremely public.  Her family hired a PR company (as the established editors are fond of pointing out, give huge numbers of interviews, and Knox meets regularly with Italian law makers (did she also meet with the PM?).  You simply can't much more public than she is.  Also, as I've noted above and several other times, this type of information is routinely included in others' articles in situations where the person has received either less media coverage or coverage over shorter periods.  Knox is an anomaly here, and it's difficult to find a reason why.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "...adding an Amanda Knox page would be easy as pie." So why don't you [LedRush] start working on one of several user-space drafts that are out there? You have one on your own you haven't touched for a long time.TMCk (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been more precise in my language. I meant adding the Knox page to the list of pages you guys survey and constantly watch would be easy as pie (in this case to ensure of no content forking).LedRush (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to work on anything in userspace, that's not an issue for anyone to say 'yes' or 'no' to. Any return to articlespace would have to be brought to deletion review though, as the status quo came about via Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if the organized group of editors here isn't on board, the likelihood of the article seeing the light of day is slim.LedRush (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only "organized" group of editors I repeatedly see on this article are those supporting this idea. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "They" (whoever they are) don't have to be "on board" for you and others working on one of the existing drafts (guess the most advanced is in Wikid77's user-space). If you think it's possible to write a standalone article about Knox then simply do so and put your money where your mouth is. Same thing happened with a Mignini article: Lots of talk but no actions till one editor said we should have such article and is now working on a draft. Kudos for him I'd say (and actually said so on his talk page).TMCk (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This subject has been debated many times, and I no longer have much of a strong opinion either in support of or in opposition to such an article. WP:BLP1E no longer seems to be a firm argument, but I would argue that content-forking is a concern.  Super Mario  Man  17:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is this... there is nothing of interest outside of the trial that makes such an article worthwhile... and it would be a case of 90% of the content being about the trial; hence defeating the object. I consistently state that a trial article has much more legs; it has scope for bringing in more biographical content that seems relevant to her only area of notability, it avoids the possibility of it being used (and lets face it, for some, this is one of the main reasons behind having a bio) to make her look like some angelic personality and it lets us divide up the content in a more meaningful way. If you want to make a fork - that is the one to make :) --Errant (chat!) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also still think that it may become desirable to fork this article, having a separate 'trials' piece. Mainly for ease of use. A biographical article on Knox though, no. I've seen a few, and they just didn't work. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 18:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

LedRush makes the best case for an article on Amanda Knox. I know there is a rule somewhere stating that I cannot mention other articles to support my argument but I would still like to know what Scott Peterson ever did in his life that was notable before he murdered his wife Laci. Innocence or guilt plays no part in the comparison. Of course I see a brand new excuse surfacing about "forking" so I guess there is always another Wikipedia policy somewhere that a Wikipedia veteran can pull out of his pocked when his last policy attempt failed. Either way the wikipedia editors that have a firm grip on the Meredith Kercher article have decided that an Amanda Knox article is a bad idea so don't expect to see an article anytime soon. Wikipedia suffers when Wikipedia veterans take a strong hold as they have here. BruceFisher (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch on the Peterson article, if I get chance tomorrow I will sort that one out. Bruce; a serious question - what other public detail about Knox would you be able to record in a biographical article? What purpose would it serve? I simply do not see what extra information you could find of relevance that does not violate the poor girls privacy. Dare I say it; have a little respect! --Errant (chat!) 19:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically, the Peterson article is actually a better one than Murder of Laci Peterson; the latter should probably be merged into the former and then renamed "Murder of...", I would say. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Forking has always been a big part of the issue here Bruce. If you look at the Scott Peterson article and the Murder of Laci Peterson one, you can see some of the issues. Most of the information that needs to be in either article needs to be in both. Why have it twice, why have to maintain two articles when one would cover it? Additionally, there's a lot of biographical info in the "murder of ..." article that's completely unnecessary. A merge is needed there. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that I need to show respect for Amanda Knox is foolish. Back to the topic at hand, Amanda Knox (by no desire of her own) has become a famous person. Amanda Knox is a victim of the media. There are thousands of articles written about her that are not directly related to Meredith Kercher. Many details of her life are not allowed on Murder of Meredith Kercher article because they are considered off topic. LedRush details it well in his post. Of course any attempt to create an article on Amanda Knox is attacked and eliminated by the organized group that has a firm grip on this article. BruceFisher (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you would like established editors to extend an assumption of good faith towards your edits here, you might try the same yourself. I don't see an organized group, I see people who know our policies and how we work. The policies aren't going to change any time soon (though you can try), so you might try listening to us and assuming we are here to improve the project, like you are. --John (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than continually complaining about mythical cabals, as has been mentioned multiple times above it would clearly be better if you actually demonstrated what such a proposed article could contain that is not already in this article by preparing a userspace draft of your own and presenting it for discussion. Mere handwaving of the "Knox is really notable and needs an article of her own" is, and has repeatedly been, spectacularly unhelpful. I also agree with pablo that if a fork is to occur here, it should be on the trial, as Knox is not the only defendant here; merely that she has received more publicity in English speaking sources due to her nationality. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * John continually rants about alleged off wiki-organization of a group of SPAs, despite the fact that these SPAs continually disagree with each other. However, when others point out that on-wiki organization is clearly happening among a group of editors who monitor the talk pages and and associated articles of anyone who posts opinions here with which they disagree, they get all bent like they'd never make similar accusations, even though they just did!  Oh well, one thing John and Black Kite get right is it is always better to comment on the actual arguments and not on the editors.  Just because they don't listen to their own advice doesn't mean that we shouldn't either.LedRush (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They are monitoring the talkpages just like you are.TMCk (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, try again.LedRush (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem - and I think you know this - is that some of the SPAs end up here via off-wiki co-ordination, some of the SPAs are effectively proxying for blocked users, some of the SPAs actually are sockpuppets of blocked users, and some of the SPAs have engaged in activity which is against Wikipedia's policies and ended up blocked. It is unfortunate for those SPAs that haven't done any of these things that they may feel they are being tarred with the same brush, but this isn't the first article where this has occurred and it won't be the last. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OMG you people make me laugh.. I mean this Amanda Knox article issue has become a power struggle between the usual "no crime articles on wikipedia" groups of users and the users that actually want to expand the wikipedia on the notability grounds established at the creation of Wikipedia. Its sad to see that articles about people that has reached notability criterias arent created just because of a non-crime article bias. Why have any criterias for inclusion when people twist them around for their own benifits of non-inclusion at any given time? just asking.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But this is a crime article. You are suggesting a biography article. zOMG roflcopter!!111oneoneone!!! <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 22:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am very firm in my believe that Amanda Knox truly deserves an article. And I find your statement a bit weird as every article about a person becomes automaticly a biography.. even if mostly about the persons criminal activities. Also there is enough material to make a possible Amanda Knox article into a good biography/crime article. And everyone is aware of this.. its just that a few users are a but grumpy as usual!.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I can see you are unshakeable in your believe, so User:BabbaQ/Amanda Knox←click here and get stuck in. Good luck. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 23:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, why would I take any suggestion seriously from you concerning this, when you dont take this discussion seriously?..hmm.. sad to see.. sad sad:)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop ranting and start drafting.Put your money where your mouth is if you're so "firm" in your believe.TMCk (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal attack on BabbaQ is not helpful, and it is misguided. I too firmly believe that Knox deserves an article.   However, I will not invest the time to make one as I am sure that you and the rest of the organization will work to ensure it gets deleted, despite WP policy and precedent.  That is why the discussions come here first.  Without the organization on board, it is doubtful progress can be made.LedRush (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's been now several month that we are waiting for someone who thinks a stand alone bio about Knox is doable to come up with something but despite a lot of promises and started drafts, no one is seriously working on such with the excuse it'll be just deleted. that is very disappointing besides that user drafts with potential usually survive quite well and are moved to main space sooner or later. time has past since the last attempt was maid and if no one tries again there never will be such a bio on Wiki. These are the pitiful facts.TMCk (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I fear that this latest discussion about a potential Knox biography is going down the same road as the last - much heat, little light (but I'm not completely innocent either). At this point, may I respectfully propose a motion to close?  Super Mario  Man  01:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If only we could hat some of the off topic sniping :)LedRush (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The only reason Amanda Knox is famous is this murder case. Anyone searching for Amanda Knox on Wikipedia will be redirected to this article on the Murder of Meredith Kercher where the case is discussed.  If someday Amanda Knox is elected to public office or becomes notable for some other reason, creating a separate article would be appropriate.  Instead of lobbying for a separate article, I would suggest improving this article by adding a few sentences to the Amanda Knox  section.  The same should be done for the Raffaele Sollecito section. --Footwarrior (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Every time anyone tries to add information about Amanda Knox it's rejected due to the fact that it's not related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. Editors like BlackKite that say people should take the time to create a separate article for Amanda Knox know this has been attempted in the past only to be removed. It appears that some here would like to see others spend a great deal of time creating an article just so they can simply remove it again. I don't think this blatant mockery by Wikipedia veterans is very healthy for Wikipedia. BruceFisher (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * About time to close the discussion. That is because it can produce no result...this discussion can't decide that there will be a separate article. This isn't a group of Wiki veterans making that so but rather process. Articles are created and then if they are nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community-at-large has the right to decide in that discussion whether the article is deleted or not. The suggestions to create the article are in good faith and it really is the only way you will find out what the community as a whole will decide on this issue. If you want other editors, not involved here already, to potentially weigh in on the subject then someone who believes that the article would survive AFD needs to create the article. It is as simple as that. If none of those who support having an Amanda Knox article are willing to write one....what do you want the rest of us to do about it? Even if we all unanimously agreed here that it should exist, it really isn't up to us.
 * The original poster listed this a month ago and was blocked elsewhere for sockpuppetry. That makes this attempt look disruptive to me such that I may write the ANI post suggesting a topic ban myself the next time this occurs. What has happened here is a needless stirring of the pot. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You ignored the fact that an article on Amanda Knox has already been created and was removed by those who strong arm this article. You are asking people to take the time and effort to create an article so the same people can remove it again. You claim that no one is willing to do the work completely ignoring the fact that it has already been done. I would say that creating hit lists for editors that you would like to see banned would be a perfect example of "needless stirring of the pot." BruceFisher (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Editors like BlackKite that say people should take the time to create a separate article for Amanda Knox know this has been attempted in the past only to be removed" - yes, because they've either (a) almost exclusively duplicated the information in this article, (b) were full of unencyclopedic trivia, or (c) they've been so badly written and/or POV-ridden that they got deleted. If someone could write an article that displayed none of those flaws, I'd vote for it to be created myself.  Tangentally, if Knox is ever found not to have been responsible for Kercher's murder, I'd definitely suggest it be split out, because then the who articles shouldn't be interlinked. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just be honest and say that you would disapprove of any article written by any SPA on Amanda Knox? It's a useless argument to have. We all know that an article on Amanda Knox will never be allowed no matter how well written it is. With regard to editing the article in the future, I have always said that time would eventually correct this article. Until then it will remain an embarrassment to Wikipedia. BruceFisher (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just be honest and say that you would disapprove of any article written by any SPA on Amanda Knox? Because I'm not a liar - thanks for yet another personal attack. I meant what I said above, and as I mentioned earlier it would probably better if you stopped talking about vague conspiracies that don't actually exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

New Testimony; Theories of the Crime Section?
A couple hundred new news articles were written about the trial in the past day or so, concentrating on 5 new defense witnesses. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/18/italy.knox/  and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/18/earlyshow/saturday/main20072239.shtml are two examples.

Earlier, Errant had suggested a section of the article dedicated to prosecution theories of the crime. That could be mixed in with alternative theories of the crime, with some of this info mixed in. Alternatively, we could merely update the appeals section to reflect this info.

Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This ref seems to contain a little more detail. If we give it another day or two, we may get better details. Of the multiple theories, the one that may be worth mentioning concerns the witnesses' testimonies surrounding Guede. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's a section with potential. There's some elements of such a section scattered in various spots, putting it all into one place is both good from an article perspective and provides useful information about a notable aspect of the case.  These theories began before the trial and have been changing since then.  Some care will need to be exercised to keep it focused on the more notable versions though.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 03:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Forensic Evidence: Stomach Contents
According to her English friends Meredith Kercher ate a meal at 6:00 or 6:30 pm (Massei report). Autopsy performed after the murder showed no stomach contents had emptied into the duodenum (Massei report). Based on a median time for stomach contents to first enter the duodenum from the start of a meal of 82 minutes (25-75% 66-102 minutes) (Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index Stephan Hellmig1,*, Florian Von Schöning1, Christof Gadow1, Stavros Katsoulis2, Jürgen Hedderich3, Ulrich Robert Fölsch1, Eckhard Stüber1, Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Volume 21, Issue 12, pages 1832–1838, December 2006) that places time of death at 9:00 or 9:30 pm, which is not consistent with the prosecutor's time of death of 11:30 pm (Massei report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've explained on my talk page, you're taking material from multiple sources and combining it to draw a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, which runs afoul of WP:SYNTHESIS. Is this conclusion examined by any reliable, third-party source (i.e. not blogs, Facebook pages, self-published websites and so on)? Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Your argument seems sound (but what do I know about this stuff), but it is original research (synth).  We need RSs reporting on information to include them here.LedRush (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And even on original research grounds, there's a huge leap between quoting a median value and giving a time with a 30-minute margin of error. From the numbers quoted, there's a 50% chance the time would lie outside this range. --John (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The stomach contents argument (complete with battling experts) is covered in the Massei Report. Glrx (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that the odds of a time of death much greater than three hours after the start of the meal is less than 1%. The pathologist who performed the autopsy based on stomach contents gave a time of death of 2-3 hours. Other expert gave 2-4 hours and one up to 5 hours (which is demonstrably false).--Dougbremner (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, but Wikipedia is not about finding the Truth. It is about reporting what reliable sources say.  Do you have any reliable sources which put the time of death at a certain time or time period?LedRush (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision of above: According to her English friends Meredith Kercher ate a meal at 6:00 or 6:30 pm (Massei report). Autopsy performed after the murder showed no stomach contents had emptied into the duodenum; based on this the pathologist testified that time of death was 2-3 hours after the start of the meal (Massei report). Another expert testified to a time of death of 2-4 hours after the start of the meal, while a third stated that time of death could have been up to five hours after the start of the meal (Massei report)--Dougbremner (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs) 21:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's quite detailed content for the article... can we get the premise of it in a sentence (with sources)? I could support that. --Errant (chat!) 22:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the time of the last meal and the absence of stomach contents in the duodenum, the pathologist who performed the autopsy placed the time of death at 9:00 pm, while two other experts placed the time of death at 9-10 pm and 9-11 pm (Massei Report).--Dougbremner 22:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs)
 * My inclination might be... Stomach content analyis by three experts placed the time of death between 9 and 11 pm. --Errant (chat!) 22:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Errant, I appreciate your attempt here at synthesizing the different takes on time of death but the way it's written sounds like they all said the time of death was from around 9 to 11, not three different times. Is there a problem with saying that different experts came up with different times of death?  Is the problem that we only have the Massei report and not something from reliable sources?(GeniusApprentice (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC))
 * As SMM says, we appear already to cover it... and, yes, the problem is any lack of sources raising this as an important or significant distinction. Remember; this is a light-weight summary of the source material so we can only go into minimal detail on content. --Errant (chat!) 22:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally understand what you are saying, but I think that sentence can easily be changed to reflect that the experts each had different times. "Stomach content analysis by three experts place the time of death at different times between 9 and 11 pm."  That might not read well, but I was thinking something of that nature.  The way it reads now makes it seem that all three experts agreed on the same time frame.  So maybe the distinction is not important, but since we have bothered to address the issue in the first place, the sentence raises another inference that we know isn't true.  I think a rightly worded sentence can be an easy fix.
 * This is already discussed in the "Events surrounding the murder" section: "According to early investigations and post-mortem examination, Kercher died in the flat between 9 and 11 pm".  Super Mario  Man  22:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think even this could be synthesized better to reflect reality. For example "According to early investigations and post-mortem examination, though experts differed on the exact time, all placed the time of death no earlier than 9PM and no later than 11 PM."  Again, I'm not sure this is the greatest sentence in the world, but I do think the way it's written now gives off the wrong impression, and therefore would not even properly reflect what reliable sources have reported. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Another possibility: "Different experts placed the time of death as early as 9pm and as late as 11pm". (GeniusApprentice (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC))


 * (e/c) ??? That is not what the Massei Report says. There were more than 3 experts who weighed in on stomach contents. Lalli at 109 (2 to 4 hours and 2 to 3 hrs after eating), Bacci at 114 (9PM to 12AM), Norelli at 119 (too many unknowns to reliably estimate), Introna at 129 (9:30 to 10:30), and Ronchi at 146 (no ligatures in autopsy; slide; 3 to 5 hours or longer). The Report at 180 rejected Introna's estimate. Furthermore, the issue of the ligatures made it possible that duodenum was not empty. Then there's the uncertainty of the meal timing, the mushroom, and the alcohol. Glrx (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

To state that the time of death based on gastric contents was placed at 9-11 pm is misleading since it makes it look like it could have been anywhere in that range. This controverts the Wikipedia entry "Digestion" which lists the gastric phase (when food fills the stomach and begins to empty into the duodenom) at 3-4 hours. Entry into duodenum begins at the beginning of the gastric phase (median 82 minutes per the citation above). What you have is three experts with three different time frames, one of which is impossible and which controverts Wikipedia "Digestion" entry. Note that there were no contents in the duodenum. It is impossible in a normal person to have no stomach contents in the duodenum after 4 hours (i.e. 10 pm). Leaving it as written 9-11 pm implying time of death could have been anywhere in this range is false. --Dougbremner 00:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs)

Even using the wikipedia "digestion" entry is misleading because the only thing of concern is the time when contents first arrive in the duodenum and I could not find a wikipedia entry for that. Apparently it is not allowed to bring in other sources to cite to what normal time of first entry into the duodenum would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougbremner (talk • contribs) 00:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia entries are not reliable sources, and can be used for just about nothing.LedRush (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

there is no uncertainty about the meal timing - the girls all placed the meal at 6:00- 6:30 pm. This was followed by watching a two hour movie (they were clear they ate before the movie), following which one of the girls accompanied Meredith home before 9:00 pm - she knows because she wanted to get home to watch a 9:00 pm TV show. Meredith was captured returning by CCTV at about 8:55 pm. These are facts. We can start from these and go from there. --Dougbremner 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)--Dougbremner 02:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Uncertainties" about alcohol, mushrooms and ligatures and "too many uncertainties" are red herrings. I am a doctor. There is a physiology of the gastric tract and Meredith Kercher had no known gastric pathology. It would be extremely unlikely for there to be no gastric contents in the duodenum after three hours and essentially impossible (e.g. p<.0001) after four hours. Her alcohol content was less than one beer. That is irrelevant. She had a mushroom fragment in her esophagus which might mean something got stuck or she had a snack on returning - which is irrelevant. "Ligatures" - the pathologist clearly said there were no contents in the duodenum. Ligatures have nothing to do with it. All known science demonstrates that a time of death is physically impossible after 10 pm.--Dougbremner 02:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this would be good to include in the Appeal Section of the article. The appeals go into the ToD issues at length. It's simple math, 4 hours is given as the longest time for the stomach to start emptying. They started dining at 6 p.m., 6 + 4 hrs = no later that 10 p.m.  I guess I'm confused how we are using the Evidence Section. To my understanding it should be the evidence used to convict and not just what was argued. Can we clarify what we want from this section? Issymo (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have reliable sources that discuss this calculation? Otherwise it's original research. --John (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * John, I'm not saying that should be stated as fact in the article. This topic is in the appeals. I think we should include the stomach content ToD issue in the appeal section of the article Issymo (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source that the topic is discussed in the appeal is the appeal. Am I missing something here? Issymo (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about just stating what is in the appeal? How about this: "In the appeal of Raffaele Sollecito, the defense argues that the time of death was between 9:30 and 10:pm. Times were estimated using body weight, temperature, and digestion (i.e. the time it takes stomach contents to begin to empty into the duodenum after the start of the last meal). The appeal also states that the court has indicated wrongly that Professor Ronchi testified that it can take 4 to 5 hours for stomach contents to empty, when his actual testimony on October 19, 2009, stated that it takes 3 to 4 hours. (source, Avv. Giulia Bongiorno and Avv. Luca Maori, Appeal of Raffaele Sollecito)"Dougbremner (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a link for this so we may take a look? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 20:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not much to add at this point.. Dougbremner doesn't seem to need any help anyway..Just checking in so the usual suspects don't label me a 'meatpuppet' or 'votestacker' and block me again. I do have to ask, are some of you actually arguing that Meredith DIDN'T eat at 6:00-6:30 and/or that accepted facts such as that the stomach empties 3-4 hours after eating are wrong? I'm thinking these sorts of objections fall under the category of desperate obstructionism... Just my take. No disrespect intended. 21:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjholme (talk • contribs)
 * We're asking to be shown where this is coming from. What reliable source is presenting this? We would like to verify that this is being presented and with some degree of importance. As it was initially presented, it appears to be original research and synthesis but we remain open-minded if someone will identify a source that we may check. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 21:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's found in Raffaele Sollecito's appeal. I agree with DougBremner that this could be mentioned it the appeal portion of the article. Issymo (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a reliable source and neither a secondary source discussing this subject thus doesn't answer Berean Hunter's question.TMCk (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's true. It's a primary source, just like the Massei and Micheli Reports. What more primary source could there be to answer what the defense is appealing than the appeal itself? Issymo (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't use unbalanced primary sources. Court records when presented prima facie will speak for themselves and we don't try to construe anything with them. We don't however wish to present Mignini's (or any other prosecutor's) material and the same applies for defense documents. Unless there are secondary sources, this subject doesn't merit mention in the article. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not get your point. The appeal doc is a primary source. There is nothing to construe if it is used to explain what is in the appeal. This subject is a component of the appeal and it definetly merits mentioning. Issymo (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Then find a good secondary source which presents the information you wish us to carry. That's how we work here. --John (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * BereanHunter and John are right; primary sources should only be used for information which doesn't require any interpretation.LedRush (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting Wikipedia's description of the use of primary sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" What is there about the defense arguing for a time of death of 9:30-10:00 pm based on medical evidence that is not straightforward? You stated that the first level trial gave a time of death of 9-11 pm, what's the difference? Dougbremner (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the defence are arguing many things. Is there any particular reason we should include this particular thing if it isn't even covered in a reliable secondary source? Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it is medically impossible for the time of death to be much past 10:00 pm, let alone 11:40 pm as found in the first trial (for the sake of brevity I am leaving out why the prosecution needed the time of death to be 11:40 pm). Meredith left her friend in the street at about 8:45 pm, was seen arriving at her home at about 8:52 pm on CCTV, made a call to her mother at 8:56 pm which was inextricably cut off and not re-dialed. We know she was alive up until this point, but the odds of her dying much after 9:00 pm start to drop off dramatically (scroll through my prior entries here to see why). Since there was computer activity at 9:26 pm at the Sollecito apartment, the physical evidence related to the stomach contents alone proves that they were not involved in the murder. Now, to anticipate those who will say that we are not hear to find truth or solve the case, I will say that someone asked why we should include this when the defence are arguing many things, and my answer is that it is one of the most important, along with lack of credibility/changing stories of witnesses, and faulty forensics/DNA conclusions Dougbremner (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, do you have a reliable source for your conclusions? <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sollecito appeal, accessed as "Apello Sollecito" and downloaded here. Translation is mine. Dougbremner (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Correction, translation checked by me. English translation is here. Dougbremner (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have absolutely ANYTHING from a secondary source showing why this aspect of the appeal is of any notability? I did a google search, and the only thing I found were, predictably, blog posts.  That's problem one.  Problem two is the "sources".  The links you've provided are generally not good enough for links - we don't know if the version uploaded is a true and correct version, nor if it's been translated accurately.  This isn't a forum - please read WP:RS and WP:OR.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article quotes the Massei Motivations Report with links to both the original and a translation that have been uploaded onto the internet. What is the difference between that and the Sollecito appeal authored by Buongiorno and Maori and submitted to the court of Perugia? Are you suggesting that this document could be a forgery? If so that would be illegal since these are legal documents. I have already covered use of primary sources in my post above. I have read WP:RS and it does not say that use of primary sources is not allowed, only that secondary sources are preferred, and in this case there are none. As for primary research, there is none. Only a translated quote from the appeal. The Italian speakers here can check that the translation is correct. Dougbremner (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The appeal argument for time of death is based in part on Professor Introna arguing in court for a time of death of 9:30 pm based on the stomach contents as reported by someone who was present at the trial here and here and here. I will leave you all to argue about the sources. Dougbremner (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing to argue as reader blogs are not reliable sources. TMCk (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you suggesting to be illegal? That isn't clear to me. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Berean, I think I know the answer to that. Dougbremner, I'm not suggesting that you've done anything wrong.  I'm quite sure it's accurate.  The problem is that with documents uploaded to sharing sites there IS a risk of that happening, making them extremely touchy w/ regards to use as a source.  Anytime you rely on something like that you should always cite from the original, then provide a courtesy link in the reference cite (especially if there's a translation involved). <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I understand. Should there be a quote from the original document in Italian with English translation with courtesy link, or a quote in English with courtesy link. Also, the appeal document underlined and bolded a section on computer activity, stating that the trial of the first instance did not consider 9:26 pm opening of a Naruto file on Sollecito's computer on 1 Nov and computer activity early the next morning. Finally, can we have some discussion about this source this source (online news media source Seattlest.com) as an acceptable secondary source related to stomach contents. This is the only one I can find outside of SeattlePI blogs. Dougbremner (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a blog...the publishing company states "Gothamist LLC owns and operates the most popular network of city blogs on the Internet today." when one clicks on their name. Back to the appeal; thank you for providing the translation, that is very helpful. What page is the text we need to see? The doc is 200 pages and I don't see a search function or where you may have indicated it above. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * News blogs where the editor retains full control over the content are acceptable secondary sources. The Seattlest article qualifies. WP:NEWSBLOGS Dougbremner (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doug on the Seattlest. Undecided on whether to include.LedRush (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, is there a printed newspaper associated with the blog? That is what qualifies under WP:NEWSBLOG...those are for the online sites of legitimate & recognized media outlets...this one isn't. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe (but, as always, could be wrong) that a print newspaper is required. Kotaku is a RS source for video-game related news, though it is a blog with no print, and I don't believe the Huffington Post has a paper (does it?).  In this day and age, having a print edition would be an odd requirement...I always thought independent editorial control was the main factor.LedRush (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was taking a literal read of our policy. The author is simply given as "Allecia and she is not listed as a member of their staff. Anyone can write for them and they simply sport themselves as a blog..."Seattlest, launched in January 2005, is a local blog that keeps Seattle residents informed of the local happenings of the city. Ranked as one of the most informative blogs on the web in a Carnegie Mellon study, readers come to Seattlest for news and events, as well as information on food and entertainment. " <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 18:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Saying they are looking for contributors does not mean that "anyone can write for them" or that it is not under editorial control. Dougbremner (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of pseudo news sites that we don't consider RS. But rather than belabor the argument over this one, it shouldn't be too difficult if this is a mainstream issue to find another source otherwise that is undue weight. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 19:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying this is the greatest source out there, but this is a self-professed news-blog, and they have what appears to be a significant editorial staff. That this writer seems to be a contributor/free-lancer instead of a staff member shouldn't matter if there is still editorial control over the content.LedRush (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seattle has lost most of its print newspapers as most people there get their news online. There is only one print paper left, the Seattle Times (the PI lost its print version). To insist that online news sources also have a print version would mean that there are no reliable sources from Seattle, which is patently ridiculous. If all Wikipedia entries required reporting by the BBC you would have to eliminate 99% of articles. Seattlest is a reliable and frequently used source of local news with a substantial editorial staff. Dougbremner (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, here is the long version: "The time of death could in this way be placed, on the basis of medical-legal criteria of the highest trustworthiness (given the unambigious and converging opinions of the various consulting experts and reports) at a distance of 2-3/3-4 hours from the beginning of the start of the last noted meal (6:30-7:00 pm on Nov 1, 2007) and then around 9:30-10:00 pm. Ascribing the time of death to 9:30-10:00 pm on Nov 1, 2007 is confirmed by the following factors: -in that the quantity (500 cc and about half kilo of gastric contents) and quality (pizza with mozzarella and vegetables, if not any apple pie) the food eaten during the last meal of Nov. 1 2007 corresponds to the gastric contents of the body. - the absence from the stomach of any food different from that described by Meredith’s friends as being consumed during the meal of Nov 1 2007. -in that the empty duodenum (being deliberately closed by means of a ligature as seen in the filmed autopsy) is indicative of the lack of initiation of emptying of the stomach." p 168 Appeal of Raffaele Sollecito Appello (Appeal) -  Raffaele Sollecito), Giuliano Bongiorno and Luca Maori, translation by Doug Bremner, Accessed 21 June 2011 at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/45300712/Apello--Sollecito. Dougbremner (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't include it. It is an unproven, unverified assertion that serves to advance the defense's theory without any reliable secondary sources. It also wouldn't improve the article. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unproven? I have already refuted the statement that primary sources are not allowed. Unverified assertion? The appeal document summarizes the findings of ALL of the experts who gave testimony. What they said about time of death is fact, not "unverified assertions". Will not improve the article? Can you honestly say that what the defense will argue in the appeal does not improve the article when we have an appeal that is in process? That the basis of that appeal is not of interest? Does anyone else agree with Berean Hunter or is this a single opinion? In any case there is a secondary source, see my comment above. Dougbremner (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that you have a valid secondary source (see my comment above). Yes, I can honestly say that there will be some of the points argued in the appeal that do not improve the article...this is an article meant to be a summary. We don't need to carry each & every point made in the appeal. If it is truly significant, it will show up in several reliable sources and we won't have to debate a single source. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b> (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stating something in Wikipedia's voice based soley on the defense appeal? Sheesh, that's pushing a whee bit of a POV there ... EDIT:  It's also way too much weight on something like that.  Still object entirely to the addition until we get some solid secondary source that demonstrates the notability of the information.  And if that happens, summarize it, not cram every possible detail as in the proposal above.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You asked me for a translation (see above). The style of writing is long winded so I posted the whole thing here. I never proposed putting all of that in there, that's why I said "here is the long version". There is a section on the appeals, there is a secondary source here, I am not including everything in the appeal, only what I consider to be the most important. Dougbremner (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But it is the sources that need to consider it important; proven by more prevalent coverage. When BBC or CBS or the Washington Post or other mainstream media begin to give weight to the issue then we can revisit. Until then, it is not an issue. Please see WP:UNDUE. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 19:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So only things that are reported on by the BBC can make it into Wikipedia? You point me to WP:UNDUE - so what is involved in the appeal (or I should the most important points of the appeal) is of interest only to a minority of people and should be given the same weight as the view of people who see the world as flat? Dougbremner (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To summarize all of the above, I am proposing the addition to the appeal of a statement to the effect that the defense appeal of Sollecito argues for a revised time of death of before 10:00 pm, based on the primary document of the appeal, and the news source of Seattlest.com. I further am arguing that Seattlest is a RS based on WP criteria that online news sources are allowable if there is editorial control over their content. Seattlest has substantial substantial editorial staff. I further argue that since all of the news sources in Seattle have gone online except for one (e.g. the PI lost its print version as well as several magazines) it is incorrect and outdated to insist that all news sources must be print media. Against the argument that stating what is in the appeal gives undue weight to a topic that is not of general interest, the stomach contents are one of the most important parts of the six or so items in the appeal (which I can list if needed). Dougbremner (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All what the seatlest article does anyway is quoting Dempsey's entry from a blog that is not reliable. TMCk (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is quoting Dempsey as a primary witness to the court hearing. You are saying that she is quoting an entry from a blog that is "not reliable". First of all, you have no evidence that it is not reliable, and second of all, you are stating that there is a different standard for something that is quoted as written in a blog versus quoted in person. You are stating that if someone writes something on their blog that it is somehow different than if I pick up a phone and call you and ask you about it. Can you provide anything to sustain this assertion? Dougbremner (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Book for bibliography
For about a month, ABC has been promoting this book which, to the best of my knowledge, exists only in digital form. Are there any rules about including this type of material in the bibliography? http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-story-ebook-abc-news-exclusive-video/story?id=13857997 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have this book? If ABC put it out themselves then SPS may apply. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 11:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The following guideline does apply in regards to notability: Notability (books). TMCk (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If ABC presents information on a news show Wikipedia accepts it as a reliable source, if they present it as a video book it is considered self published? I think it's a stretch to put an ABC news presentation into a self published category. BruceFisher (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm reading this advert wrongly this book contains a kind of compilation of ABC's news coverage, which is surely fine to use as sourcing. Like Bruce nearly says, all ABC's output is published by ABC, isn't it? <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Pablo; it seems fine to pop into the bibliography --Errant (chat!) 10:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely, but I'd go further (without, admittedly, having seen it - has anyone here?) and say if it is as advertised then it can be used as a source for ABC's reports at the time. E-books are a relatively new medium which need some serious thought wikipedia-policy-wise. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it, I note a couple of others that have an ASIN rather than a ISBN, which needs looking at. If they're amazon-only that's fine but if not it's just advertising. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Benefit for Knox
This article has some interesting information that could be incorporated into the article
 * Knox's family is over a million dollars in debt
 * Trump has made donations to Knox's defense fund and has contacted Knox's parents directly
 * Knox's family does not support the boycott of Italian products that Trump called for

The way the "support" section is currently structured, some of this info may be hard to incorporate, but I do believe at least some of this is worthwhile. Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First one I think is a useful bit. Second one, not as sure about - it's getting more into name-dropping to highlight specific donors.  Last one, probably not unless there's something that can show Trump's "boycott" has had any impact.  Him saying something does not make it notable.  I think adding something to the end of the initial para on the support section would work.  "The investigation, trial and appeal have been extremely expensive, with the Knox family incurring significant debt to date.  Funds have been established to help with these costs."  Obviously there's a fund for Knox, does anyone know about something for Sollecito?  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Added. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

New Testimony; Theories of the Crime Section?
A couple hundred new news articles were written about the trial in the past day or so, concentrating on 5 new defense witnesses. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/18/italy.knox/  and http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/18/earlyshow/saturday/main20072239.shtml are two examples.

Earlier, Errant had suggested a section of the article dedicated to prosecution theories of the crime. That could be mixed in with alternative theories of the crime, with some of this info mixed in. Alternatively, we could merely update the appeals section to reflect this info.

Any thoughts?LedRush (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This ref seems to contain a little more detail. If we give it another day or two, we may get better details. Of the multiple theories, the one that may be worth mentioning concerns the witnesses' testimonies surrounding Guede. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 11:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's a section with potential. There's some elements of such a section scattered in various spots, putting it all into one place is both good from an article perspective and provides useful information about a notable aspect of the case.  These theories began before the trial and have been changing since then.  Some care will need to be exercised to keep it focused on the more notable versions though.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 03:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Guede's Testimony
A few hundred more articles are up regarding Guede's testimoney. This seems like an ok one LedRush (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added the bit on Alessi and Guede testifying. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  14:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The basis for backing up Alessi is this, I believe: "Castelluccio was also held at the Viterbo prison. He said he heard the story about Knox and Sollecito's innocent mostly from Alessi. However, he said on one occasion when he was in his cell, he heard Guede say from a separate cell that Knox and Sollecito were innocent."1 <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All that he and others are backing up is that Knox and Solecito had nothing to do with the crime, not the detailed account Alessi gave.TMCk (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The MSNBC article that Berean Hunter quotes seems to say much more than that. They say that the other witness testified that he had already heard the story of innocence, mostly from Alessi (therefore backing up the claim) and that he heard independently from Guede that they were innocent (also supporting the story).
 * This, to me, clearly supports Alessi's testimony (or backs it up, if you prefer). It also does more...it adds a new aspect, i.e., that they also heard Guede say K&S were innocent independent of Alessi.  TMCk, is there language which you would like to propose to incorporate this information?
 * I proposed the language I did because it is directly supported by the cites and is very short. However, we could say something that even more closely matches the language of the article (but hopefully doesn't run afoul of COPYVIO), like "The defense also called other witnesses to support Alessi's testimony. One such witness testified that he had heard stories of Knox and Sollecito's innocence while he was in jail and he heard Guede say that Knox and Sollecitor were innocent." LedRush (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So, should I just re-add my last edit, or is there a constructive comment to it?LedRush (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No. You can put in something like what you're proposing here.TMCk (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DoneLedRush (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

DNA evidence review by court appointed experts.
The review found that the DNA profiles on the knife blade and on the bra clasp are not reliable. There is an article in the Daily Mail today that could be used as a source if needed, but I would prefer to find one with a better reputation to update the article. Footwarrior (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has people from Knox's camp saying the forensics people said it wasn't reliable, but it only quotes the report as saying the DNA couldn't be retested and may have been contaminated. This is "breaking news", so I expect we'll get better information as we wait.LedRush (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The report does call the DNA evidence unreliable.     LedRush (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The international procedures for inspection, protocol and collection of evidence were not followed."  LedRush (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I ran across a translation of the report conclusions. The issues with these two pieces of evidence go far beyond a mere possibility of contamination. Unfortunately, Wikipedia rules leave us hoping that some newspaper reporter reads the report and understands the science enough to write a proper article.  Maybe we will get lucky this time. Footwarrior (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The report comes out tomorrow; can I suggest waiting till it is picked up properly by some really good media. I noticed the AFP (google hosted content) article which is probably the best so far & would be enough for inclusion IMO. But I feel this is fairly major point in the appeals process so it would be good to do it careful justice :) --Errant (chat!) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We also have Fox News for the specific comments, but it does make sense for the actual report to be released widely and then see how the media treat it.LedRush (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * From from front page Corriere della Sera- Specifically the Kercher DNA on the knife blade was low copy number and none of the appropriate cautions were taken and therefore they cannot conclude that the Kercher DNA was present on the knife. There was the possibility of contamination of the bra clasp. What is not said in the article was that there were no skin cells on the bra clasp and there was an error in the analysis of the Y chromosome (i.e. there was nothing there in the first place). It doesn't really matter though bottom line is that they concluded no evidence for DNA of Kercher on knife or Sollecito on bra clasp, and that is being reported in all the major news outlets. Dougbremner (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * PERUGIA, Italy (Reuters) - An independent forensic report Wednesday discredited police evidence used to help convict American student Amanda Knox of the murder of her English housemate, in a major victory for her defense. BruceFisher (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The most complete report so far, confirming everything above. . And the NYTimes LedRush (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This source quotes that the experts said there were "erroneous interpretations" of the electropherograms related to identification of the Y chromosome and autosomal STRs. Are foreign language sources acceptable if there is no English source? Dougbremner (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are English translations. This report  says the same thing.  The more of this report I read, the more I read it as "scathing", as the sources describe it.LedRush (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article appeared in the Guardian yesterday Totorotroll (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and another good source. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the best way to integrate this information? I would think that, as currently written, we would need to explain this thoroughly in the appeals section, and also make mention of this (and delete other language) in the current forensics section.LedRush (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The report is made public today but the actual review of the report doesn't occur until July 25. I would suggest just adding what the report states in a small paragraph but I wouldn't start making major amendments to the forensics section just yet. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. As I mention below, I believe this issue, while open, ties into some much larger questions.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The most in depth article I've seen about the murder and Knox
Is here

It has much basis for a Knox article, as well as for supporting other information in the article. More comments to come.LedRush (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization of article
I know that several of the editors here have kicked around the idea of reorganizing the article, but it is a large task and there are worries from different editors about adding POV during the process. However, the new report on the unreliability of the DNA evidence and the criticism of the police/forensics personnel now put a finer point on the question of reorganization. Perhaps the question is premature as the report can still be objected to, but here it goes...

Is the current structure of the trial/evidence the best one? If not, what is the preferable way?

Currently, it seems to me that we have a semi-chronological order, with later information inserted when the early information is hotly contested or provably wrong. The advantage of this approach is that it tries to deal with allowing the reader to understand the process as it unfolded, but not cause BLP issues or misunderstandings by people who read only about the trial, for example.

Another method would be to go in pure chronological order. This might be easiest to follow, but it can be highly misleading, especially considering the many changes in witness testimony, prosecution theory, and forensic reliability.

Yet another method would be to explain each "set" of evidence completely, section by section. (e.g., witnesses section, forensics section, etc). This has the advantage of not being misleading, but it could be hard to follow. Also, the related "trial" sections would be loose overviews...little more than the statements of when they happened and what the conclusions of the court were (sentences, etc.).

While I tend to favor either the last or first (current) approach, it is a highly complicated question and am open to ideas and thoughts, hence this topic.LedRush (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a big fan of the chronological order approach for Wikipedia articles. This is supposed to be a summary of the topic, not the full details.  Going chronologically makes it far too easy to keep adding in every detail and much harder to tie related things together.  It's one of the reasons I keep harping on notability - why is point XYZ notable.


 * I think I've said in the past that a reorg would help. Started one, then the page went to hell and I deleted my notes.  My preferred approach would be your last idea.  I'd put the G's trial and appeal, then K & S trial and appeal sections, then the controversies though.  The K&S appeal section is where a great deal of the "meat" of this article starts.  So summarize the trial, highlighting any significant issues raised in the trial.  Possible idea is to include a list of the major evidence used in the trial, but I'm leery about that turning into what we've got now.  Then the appeal, summarizing the timeframe of the appeal and a summary of the various controversies raised by each side.  The existence of those would also be touched in the lede (1 sentence) but get more detail here (3-4, maybe more depending on things).  Next section is controversies.  Possible sections here include Mignini's changing theories, forensic procedures and evidence, with sub-sections under evidence for highly controversial pieces of evidence that have a material impact.  The initial sections of the article


 * I think the hardest part will be to keep a good focus on being a summary. I'm not always the best at that, but too much detail can really bog down articles.  We link to sources for more specific details about things, highlight important points to cover the story.  There have been vast improvements on that here, I'm just worried some of the old fights will come back.  I like the re-org idea, and think it can result in a much more readable and informative article.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One re-org proposal that seemed to have support was to re-jig the trials section to have abrief chronological overview of both trials - plus the information about the appeals process and innocent till proven guilty etc. And then follow that with more detailed stuff on the trial proceedings. Really the evidence needs to go in this section as well - and then above that we can do a simple chrnology of the murder, arrests and investigation pre-trial. --Errant (chat!) 18:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

An NPOV issue
Per the NPOV tag policy; the tag can be removed upon a consensus of agreement, as happened. So this tag I presume to be a new addition to the article; Rocksound, having read the NPOV policy, will know that he must now detail the specific neutrality issue he feels exists so that it can be addressed and the tag removed. I presume he simply forgot to do so when adding the tag just now :) so this is section is a friendly reminder for him to do so. --Errant (chat!) 21:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus for removal. But it was removed anyway. I merely put it back. Many editors objected, so I don't see how you can say there was consensus for removal.

Can you please link to this NPOV tag policy you refer to? RockSound (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If he does so in a convincing way I will restore the badge of shame myself.TMCk (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated my concerns about this article above, several times. It is consistent with what Mr. Wales has said. The article is biased and slanted because there has been a blocking or removal of material from reliable sources. Here are some of his comments for reference: I agree with you generally, but I think that the article has more problems than that. I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion. I recommend reading all of this (it is long) and taking particular note of the sections "PhanuelB's Reliable Sources". Compare that to what appears in the article. I have drawn no firm conclusions, but there is enough here to warrant careful examination. An additional concern, about which again I have drawn no firm conclusions, is that this edit led to a block. I just now personally ran checkuser and found nothing; I invite more experienced checkusers to follow up on my exploration. I am merely raising questions, not putting forward conclusions - at this time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that this edit should have been reverted. Condensed or summarized, sure, why not, that would be a perfectly ok editorial revision. But censoring the views of prominent journalists and newspapers because it doesn't fit an agenda, is the precise opposite of NPOV. CNN, CBS, New York Times. Pulitzer Prize winning journalists. Those are sources, and to pretend they don't exist is a mistake. (I would omit Donald Trump, as his views don't seem particularly relevant, except perhaps (perhaps) in a section on celebrity responses.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2011

My point is this: reliable sources are raising serious doubts about her guilt. We have to report on that. Even if some people think she's guilty. Tarc suggested - in a factually mistaken manner - that objections here are like those of JFK conspiracy theorists. That's obviously false, when those objections are based on serious requests that reliable sources be taken seriously.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

John, you ask if I think the article should have an NPOV tag now. I think that as long as there are legitimate conflicts here about whether or not the article is neutral, we should have an NPOV tag so as to warn our readers that we haven't reached consensus. Unlike some, I am an eternal optimist, and I think we actually can reach consensus. I agree with SuperMarioMan, too: the best thing to do is to raise specific objections to specific parts of the article, with proposed revisions and quality sources. A general rant "this is not neutral" isn't as good as more specific things. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Some editors are editing to present a POV. Some editors edit so as to make Knox and Sollecito look as guilty as possible and to present as favorable a picture as possible of Guede. That is not justified, since Knox and Sollecito are currently innocent, while Guede has a determinative conviction. Material added to correct the imbalance is systematically removed,as just happened with my most recent edits. The bias in the article is obvious. There is a blocking of efforts to clarify the status of Knox and Sollecito, for example. Deletion or distortion of the level of support for Knox and Sollecito. Evidence presented so as to point to K and S. Extensive discussion of prosecution materials with little about what the defense has countered. Exclusion of discussion about legitimate criticism of the evidence. Exclusion of discussion about prosecutor. Exclusion of dicussion about what public figures are saying. I could go on and on.RockSound (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It would help if you stop the "Jimbo has said" red herring and present specifics as to why the general NPOV tag is warranted despite consensus against it. If you feel that a section or more are slanted in one way please present your objections and maybe a section NPOV tag is warranted. And you really should stop the "Some editors are editing to present a POV" thingy as you would be one of them.TMCk (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: user:RockSound changed his comment after I replied.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Those comments were maid in March, now we have June.TMCk (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I added some June quotes by Mr. Wales above, which shows that he too thinks that a NPOV tag is appropriate. As for a listing of non-neutral/bias defects, see my list above. That should be enough, but if you need more I will add more when I have more time. But generally all this seems like a waste of time, since any efforts to bring balance to this article using information from reliable sources is being deleted. RockSound (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a few editors have argued that the tag isn't appropriate. I for one would like to see proponents of the tag offer a rationale that is a little more cogent (and also assumes less bad faith) than "censorship of dissent not allowed". It is well known that this topic is contentious - I see little need to have a tag placed at the head of the article so as to provide us with a conscious reminder of that fact whenever we click on the link.  Super Mario  Man  22:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rocksound, Wales is one editor with one opinion. You have made your point about what you feel the POV problems with the article are, but this opinion has not gained sufficient consensus among other editors. Tarc (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Many editors on here have said that the NPOV tag should not have been deleted. It was deleted without consensus. It is beyond dispute that NPOV is being disputed in this article. To say that there is no dispute is disingenuous. Since there is clearly a dispute, Wiki allows the placement of a template and even provides sample templates to use. The removal of the NPOV tag, while deleting all of my many edits today, even very minor ones, is just another example of the neckhold POV pro-guilt censorship that is going on here. RockSound (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There are too many problems with this article, I would like the NPOV tag put back up and left there until after the appeal. Issymo (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to remove the tag. It obviously should remain per above.LedRush (talk) 15:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was a consensus that the tag was either merited or would play a useful part in enabling us to improve the article. In order for the tag to remain, we would need a specific point that was disputed, not just a general feeling among a small group of advocates that this article was not quite to their liking. --John (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Very specific points that I've brought up after the tag was removed is the inclusion in the Evidence portion of the article evidence used against Knox that was not used to convict her in the Massei report. This includes a sentence stating that MK body was disrobed and moved after death.  I also posted just below the inclusion of a women's shoe that was not part of the Massei reasoning for guilt.  I certainly am an advocate for a fair and balanced article, which still does not exist. Issymo (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The original discussion was [taking down the NPOV tag]. The consensus appeared to be remove, and it was removed.
 * Then RockSound claimed that it should not have been removed.
 * For me, there isn't a clear criticism about the article's POV. When specific issues have been brought up, there have been efforts to resolve them. The issue about extraneous evidence does not seem critical, and even if some evidence were not used to convict her at the first trial, that does not mean it should be excluded from the article. To contest or dismiss a statement, just bring in a reliable source. In any event, the NPOV tag over the presentation of evidence should be an NPOV section tag rather than the entire article.
 * Removing the NPOV tag is appropriate.
 * Glrx (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the consensus to remove the tag in the original topic, and I don't see a need for John's continued personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you see every comment which does not agree with your views as a personal attack, you may wish to recalibrate your sensibilities. You should also refrain from edit-warring over a tag, which is deeply silly and only devalues any point you may have. --John (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't mischaracterize my points. You label everyone who disagrees with you as being "not fairminded" or an "advocate".  By attacking people in general terms and by personally attacking these editors who don't agree with you, you are poisoning the talk page.LedRush (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus that the tag was either merited or would play a useful part in enabling us to improve the article. In order for the tag to remain, we would need a specific point that was disputed, not just a general feeling among a small group of advocates that this article was not quite to their liking. --John (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You would need a consensus to remove the tag, not to keep it, right? Also, there were many specific suggestions made, both in March and in the past few days.  Even Errant acknowledged that the article is slanted in anti K&S and pro K&S segments.  While he thinks that is not a POV issue, I think it is.  We should be aiming for NPOV, not equal amounts of POV.LedRush (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template usage notes (from Template:POV)
 * Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.
 * The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.
 * The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
 * This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

I think we did have a consensus to remove it and I do not see what restoring it will achieve in the absence of clear-cut objections based in policy. --John (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are still alleged NPOV problems three months after its initial placement would seem to suggest that the presence of the tag in itself has done little or nothing to accelerate the resolution of the dispute. Such tags should not be used as permanent "badges of shame" or general "warning notices". Ours currently serves no significant purpose that I can see other than to remind us of the numerous past conflicts that this topic has endured. Will simply leaving the NPOV tag in place lead to substantial benefits in the long run? I'm inclined to doubt it.  Super Mario  Man  22:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * All 4 of the template bullets work for this article. 1. Ongoing dispute, check. 2. Ongoing discusssion, check. 3. Attract new editors, check.  This has been very beneficial to the page to have attracted some neutral editors and more are needed.  4. reasonably believe to lack a NPOV, check. There was not a concensus when the tag was taken down as noted by how many editors are objecting. Issymo (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The initial discussion at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive 32 produced quite a clear consensus favouring the removal of the tag. This is a completely new discussion. However, of course, consensus can change.  Super Mario  Man  22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 24 hour initial blitzkrieg attack had mostly supporters, while the immediate backlash revealed that there is a pretty even divide of views...the exact opposite of a consensus. The policy quoted above clearly indicates that because there is an ongoing dispute, and because many editors believe there is not a NPOV reflected here, and because the discussions are not dormant, the tag must be retained.LedRush (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And the lie that there aren't specific suggestions should stop. There are specific suggestions...in fact, editors have complained that there are too many suggestions to make the article more neutral.LedRush (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * And calling editors liers is not a PA? Did you notice that your sensibillity for PA's is about 500% higher when words come from neutral editors compared to the "free-Amanda-crowd and yourself?"TMCk (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't call anyone a lier. I stated that it is a lie to say that there are no specific objections to the article.  My statement is verifiably true by simply looking on this very talk page.
 * Furthermore, I believe that the personal attacks, sarcasm, and hostility made by you, John, Tarc and others poisons this message board. It may even be a tactic to induce newer editors less familiar with WP rules to more clearly break WP policy so that you can block those that do not agree with you.  Or, maybe you guys are just sarcastic people who are hostile to anyone who voices an opinion different than your own.  Regardless, your rudeness has a very real, negative effect on the quality of the article as a whole.
 * Finally, I have consistently warned people from the "free-Amanda-crowd" about civility, so it seems that you either have selective memory, selective attention, or you are misrepresenting the truth. Again.LedRush (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing but wishy-washy and your way is perfect. Dream on.TMCk (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "The 24 hour initial blitzkrieg attack" - what?  Super Mario  Man  00:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was overly dramatic. I just meant that the 24 hour period in which the "consensus" was declared included only the "anti-Knox" crowd (a horrible moniker, I know, but if other editors insist on the labeling the "knox is innocent crows...), and that the following conversation demonstrated that, in fact, no consensus was reached.LedRush (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's all well and good, but is it really necessary to be so personal? I contributed to that discussion and do not consider myself to be part of any "anti-Knox crowd" at all.  Super Mario  Man  01:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Determining consensus concerning NPOV tag
From what I have seen, it seems to be a general goal of the innocence advocates to keep the tag up as a would-be warning to anyone reading the article. This seems to be a tactical maneuver and a misuse of the template. As there are differing claims concerning the consensus, it would be good to get clarification concerning the tag usage.


 * Remove - the tag is inappropriate as discussion is progressing and it shouldn't be used as a badge of shame. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove Per Berean Hunter above and per the previous consensus which has not been challenged using policy-based arguments. Can we note that this is not a vote but a discussion? --John (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a discussion but I also thought that getting a poll to clarify would be useful as some are claiming different things concerning the last consensus. As it is possible that it may have changed, I was looking for clarification. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove. I doubt that there is anyone at this topic who is not aware that there are frequent disputes here - why we need a tag to advertise this to anyone reading the article is a mystery to me.  Super Mario  Man  00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There was never consensus to remove it, and there are ongoing, specific issues which need to be addressed. All the criteria for having a tag have been met, as made clear above.  The process of the removal can be most generously be termed dodgy.LedRush (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove - A tag is not a generic badge of shame, nor is it for minor quibbles over evidence reorganizations and "why can't we include this source?" topics. It was initiated by a now indef'ed sock/SPA, and serves no further purpose on the article. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this is from an indef'd SPA/Sock (as if that invalidates other editors' opinions, which, of course, it doesn't). However, I suspect you are once again getting the facts wrong: did DreamGuy get indef'd as a sock/SPA? LedRush (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but he isn't here actively discussing the issues...that is part of the process when using the tag. Barring that, the tag may be removed. There has been time for an investigation by now. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have many editors here actively discussing many NPOV issues. This whole topic is surreal.LedRush (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is necessary because the article still has too many NPOV problems. I've already listed specific examples. Please restore the tag.Issymo (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Issymo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SPA tag added by User:john.LedRush (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you find it necessary to add "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" to a bunch of editors? Do you know what the feels like? It feels like you are making people wear the letter A or in this case the letters SPA. I find it very offensive. I'm aware that I'm an SPA.  That is allowed.  I have edited in good faith and have been willing to compromise.  I'm knowledgeable and interested in this case and choose to spend my time here.  You are inflaming the situation by doing this.  I listed SEVERAL reason why I think the NPOV tag should be put back.  I have a right to my opinion. I feel this is harassment of the highest order to add this line to my profile.  I ask that you remove it from mine and everyone elses.  Nobody deserves this treatment.  It is really childish and uncalled and completely offensive. Issymo (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. John's tags do nothing but create a poisonous atmosphere where civil discussion cannot happen.  The tags should be removed.LedRush (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The tags are to help a closing admin to weigh the arguments. There is nothing wrong with being an SPA, but in a discussion, these "me too" comments from people with no wide experience of how we make decisions here do not deserve to be counted with the same weight as those who have wider experience. If folks find it offensive to state the obvious here I am happy for them to be removed, but maybe that is indicative of the problem here. A group of people who only edit this area and clearly coordinate off-wiki to stack a vote can expect to be called out for it. If someone doesn't like being called an SPA, they should perhaps consider how their edit pattern looks to others. I am confident that whichever admin closes this will be smart enough to figure this for themselves. --John (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you will be happy to remove them. Please do so.  You have made your opinion well heard on the NPOV tag, it is my opinion that you should not be using your power as an admin in a way to raise your opinion as being of more importance than other editors. Issymo (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many SPAs have been editing here for a long time and demonstrate more than adequate knowledge of the policies. Also, John's accusation regarding off-Wiki coordination could just as easily (and more believably) be directed at him.  However, I would rather discuss content, not editors.  As an Admin I would expect more from him.LedRush (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a clear attempt to cause dismay,it being done by an admin is very troubling and shows a issue taking place within this article.( This comment was typed from an SPA)-- Truth  Mom  05:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You've helped prove why it needs to kept out. With your bias to leave the tag up until after the appeal is over, that shows abuse of the template. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This tag needs to remain. This article has flipped so many directions but a neutral one. The constant battle here makes me feel, this tag will be forever to be quite honest. Until the issues can be settled it needs to stay. --Truth Mom (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC) — Truth Mom (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SPA tag added by User:john.LedRush (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)This user has in fact edited on other articles pertaining to Jay J. Armes -- Truth  Mom  05:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What issues, Truth Mom? You've just helped make the case for removal..."this tag will be forever". What in your view would bring it around to being neutral? Why isn't it now? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article needs a lot of work. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)) — GeniusApprentice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SPA tag added by User:john.LedRush (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC) (Keep comment struck as user has been blocked indef as a sockpuppet of CandaceDempsey. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC))
 * The above type of drive-by, me-too comment is part and parcel of the entire problem here. None of the SPA "votes" on this matter are valid. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're accusing someone of SPA, substantiate it first. Otherwise it is simply an ad-hom attack.  This is the only name I've ever used, and I have actually yet to edit the article.  Part of the problem with this article is editors such as yourself who makes unsubstantiated assumptions and then argue with anyone who doesn't share in that assumption.  I would direct you to your earlier declarations that the mainstream point of view is that Amanda Knox and Raffaele were guilty and thus we should be editing the article based on this assumption.  Your only evidence was because a court found them guilty and nothing more.  You could not substantiate with any reliable sources.  Unfounded assumptions like this are what is making this article pretty awful. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)) — GeniusApprentice (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SPA tag added by User:john.LedRush (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But you are an SPA...all one has to do is look at your editing history. It substantiates itself...there is no attack. He didn't call you a sockpuppet. Confusion from SPAs is what makes this talk page a mess. You've just help prove Tarc's point. SPAs don't seem to make valid arguments here. You've appeared suddenly to help stack votes after being gone for how long? What drew your attention here today? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Berean Hunter, fair point. I thought Tarc was accusing me of being a sock puppet, which I'm not.  However, to your point about valid arguments, you seem to ignore the invalid and unsubstantiated arguments that Tarc has made which I addressed.  This unsubstantiated assumption he has acknowledged should guide the entire editing of this article.  And God forbid, I said that would be fine if Tarc could find reliable sources that expressed this point of view.  Furthermore, while we're on the topic of asking about being "gone for how long", is completely irrelevant.  I actually have perused this talk page about every other day with some interest.  I appreciate longstanding editors explaining things, but seniority certainly does not make one's argument good be default, nor substantiated.(GeniusApprentice (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Do you have anything to support your accusation, or is this just another attack on anyone with a different opinion?LedRush (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What accusation is that? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 03:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I appreciate Berean Hunter's concern over voting stacking and SPAs. I can understand why that is concern.  As someone who hasn't edited other articles yet (nor this one), I think it is fair to watch out for this kind of thing.  So Berean, I get it.  But you got the wrong guy.  I'm not vote stacking, plain and simple.  The fact of the matter is, it is obvious that there is no real consensus here and you don't need to be a long time editor to see that.  (GeniusApprentice (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
 * Thank you Genius. I'm not accusing you but wanted to know if someone else was asking you to come here...sometimes people get roped into things. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The vote stacking accusation, of course. Why does he have to say what brought his attention?  On what do you base this accusation?  Are we going to ask why the others who were against the removal, like Jimbo Wales, why he isn't commenting?  Are we going to ask why it seems like you, TMCk, John and Tarc show up to hurl personal attacks and/or accusations at seemingly anyone who disagrees with your points of view in an apparent coordinated effort?  I would rather not ask these questions and simply comment on arguments.LedRush (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why Led, I notice that you didn't question Genius's accusations against Tarc. Are you still impartial? As for the vote-stacking, it is obviously coordinated off-site ==> Quack, Quack. As for your question to me, "...show up to hurl personal attacks and/or accusations at seemingly anyone who disagrees with your points of view", well, how is your behavior any different than that? Where am I attacking anyone? You throw that word out a lot maybe failing to see that doing so without merit forms a type of attack of its own... <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Berean, can I respectfully ask which "accustation" from me you're speaking about? If you're asking me about my "accusation" that Tarc has made unsubstantiated assumptions, that is actually just a fact and not a personal attack or accusation at all.  I am happy to kindly point you to where I'm talking about in case you have missed it.  But I will respectfully explain his position and why it is unfounded and actually ridiculous (and probably if this is the illogical thinking other editors are taking, it would explain why this article reads so badly).  He has basically put forth that because the court found Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty, then that therefore necessitates that their guilt is the "mainstream view".  Two things that a syllogism like this makes me question.  First, where is the rule that "if court finds X guilty, then X being guilty is the mainstream view".  That is not logically valid argument in the real world, but if Wikipedia abides by this principal, then you or Tarc can happily point me in the right direction.  Somehow I don't think this is the case.  Secondly, Tarc can get around this dilemma by simply pointing us to a reliable source that shows what the "prevailing mainstream" view is.  If you consider this breakdown as an "accusation", fine, I guess that what it is.  But it's still an accusation backed up by something and breaks no rules.  It's worth bringing up when editors are making illogical and unfounded suppositions. (GeniusApprentice (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
 * You are attacking someone directly above here; that's why I commented! Accusing people of vote stacking is going after the editors, not the comments.  I am trying to stop that.  As for Genius's comments about Tarc, it seems that he was asking him to stop attacking him.  Are you referring to something else, or are you merely leveling more personal attacks at me by calling me impartial?LedRush (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Genius was accusing Tarc with "Otherwise it is simply an ad-hom attack"...when there was no attack. Genius was confused and read the situation wrong. Why do you have selective sight on who you are willing to defend? And then you hurl attacks yourself as well as accusations. You're not fooling anyone. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, Led and Berean, this boils down to me thinking he was calling me a sock puppet. That's not what he was saying, so it's not an ad-hom attack, and I respectfully retract that.  Berean was kind enough to explain to a newer user about SPA's and I am happy for that.  Fair enough?  (GeniusApprentice (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC))
 * At this point i say remove the tag by removing the whole article, this is unreal to sit and watch take place like it is, I think there would be argument over which font it should have it that was an option for it as well, I have made way to get along with all and to be flexible when I have spoke up, only to be attacked from around the corner even. It is a sad shame.-- Truth  Mom  04:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you please drop the Innocence Act? From Day 1 you have pushed and goaded Jimbo into coming here to "save" the (in your opinion) horribly biased and unfair-to-Amanda article.  That you are nicer about it than, say, codybibby or rocksound is a given, but honestly, being a civil POV pusher is no less problematic than the incivil one. Tarc (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Will you please kindly stop the PERSONAL attacks, from Day 1 you have hit me with them, and you know it is against Wiki Policy. Thank you kindly.-- Truth  Mom  04:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * []-- Truth  Mom  04:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are no personal attacks on my part., if you feel different, try your hand at WP:WQA. You have come here to a collaborative online encyclopedia to advance a cause that you personally believe in. That is not what the project is for.  I have called you out om this behavior, and will continue to call you out on this for as long as you persist in doing it. Tarc (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are clearly comments on an editor, and not on the edits. Please, please stop your attacks and try and do something constructive.LedRush (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quoted "Will you please drop the Innocence Act? " = Personal attack. I have pushed no POV, In fact I actually rarely even comment, yet each time your right on my heals. Again, I will not involve myself in your arguments. So your "calling out" will not affect me. This is not a gang arena. This is a professional encyclopedia arena, that Mr. Wales has put his name and efforts into making a wonderful asset to the world. Thank you kindly :) -- Truth   Mom  04:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, there is another venue in which to lodge complaints over what you perceive are personal attacks. Whining about it here serves no purpose.  You are a single purpose account as we define it, and your opinion on this subject will continue to be weighted little to nothing because of that. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomersNewcomers' ideas of how things should be handled within Wikipedia will largely be out of context. It's a jungle out there, and it may take some time before a newcomer becomes accustomed to how things work here. Keeping that in mind may help you avoid becoming a "biter"-- Truth  Mom  13:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is pretty obvious by this continuous discussion that the NPOV tag should remain on the article. BruceFisher (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Until when? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Until we can get it right. If the article will not be deleted then it should remain tagged. Wikipedia's format is not suited for certain topics. This case is clearly one of them. If the media gets it wrong, Wikipedia gets it wrong. Everything is based on how the media reported it. Even if an article is 3 years old and the content has been fully discredited in court, never mentioned again by anyone anywhere, the content of that outdated article can be used as a credible source on Wikipedia for the simple fact that no other credible source ever felt the need to refute it in print. This is a major flaw of Wikipedia that makes it completely impossible to present an accurate article. People who are highly educated on this case are accused of beign advocates and are blocked. Charlie Wilkes has vast knowledge of this case. He was swiftly blocked in a large sweeping accusation of meatpuppetry. The best solution would be for Wikipedia to stay away from articles like this but until then the public should know that the content of the article is highly disputed. BruceFisher (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The options are slim, we could draw straws, we could all get along for once, or we can burn the article at the stake...... The fact that an Admin is doing the things above is showing a POV I feel. Earlier I was upset of the SPA, but since Super did a great job explaining it to me, now I think I am proud to be an SPA, It shows I haven't served many hours in this constant battling.-- Truth  Mom  05:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (well-composed Bruce) The problem is that this isn't what that tag was intended for. Simply saying that we need to keep the tag on it unless it is deleted shows that someone is unhappy that it doesn't reflect their ideas about what is right. At Wikipedia, we report what the mainstream, reliable sources have written. We don't promote particular advocacies and we can't judge in that way. We are awaiting the outcome of the appeals process...that is likely the next major event for this article. Btw, the article isn't going to be deleted...that was a joke on Jimbo's talk page and wasn't meant to be serious but unfortunately some here haven't understood that yet. The article would withstand AFD with a speedy keep.


 * I don't know if the media is getting it wrong as you say but we have to reflect what we find in those sources. I've read that Amanda's attorney has stated that many of her supporters are doing her more harm than good...well, I think that is the case here at Wikipedia, too. The patience of established editors is/has been worn thin by repeated and often frivolous attempts to control the article and some of the supporters have indeed been found to be socking which wears out the good faith that is left. (I haven't thought that you were were one of them). <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "I've read that Amanda's attorney has stated that many of her supporters are doing her more harm than good" It's really disappointing to see you post up this outdated talking point. I honestly thought you were above all of that. Please post up the source for this statement and let me know how long ago it was said. Wow! Three years ago! An attorney makes one comment in frustration while walking out of a courtroom and it's repeated over and over again for 3 years simply to push an agenda. I am not accusing you of having an agenda but your comments here are far less than useful. Like I said, outdated refuted garbage is being used here as credible. I will tell you first hand that the support Amanda receives is well appreciated. Your comments regarding her support do absolutely nothing to benefit this article. The fact remains that this article is heavily disputed and the tag should remain. As far as the sockpuppet stuff goes, I am sure it happens on both sides of the debate but the accusations are out of hand. I was recently accused of sockpuppetry with absolutely nothing to back it up. Why? Because I posted a comment in defense of another editor that was banned. I guess that's proof enough! And the games continue....  BruceFisher (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh...no. It is from last September and not 3 years ago. Your allegations about me are quite incorrect....but you are helping to prove my point that more harm is done by people who believe they know the truth. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 23:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "we report what the mainstream, reliable sources have written" This is the problem with Wikipedia allowing articles like this one. The format works well for many topics but falls far short when it comes to topics of this nature. Wikipedia is not acting as an encyclopedia when it comes to this article, it is nothing more than a media guide. BruceFisher (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The media has itself been making a turn around, ie: BN and NP and yet those articles are claimed as non_RS . It is a pick and choose theme taking place regarding RS's. So how does that get remedied? O have seen many links posted here and then shot down just because, by the same ones who use that sources for something else.-- Truth  Mom  06:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is getting silly... the point of discussing the tag removal was to determine if it was being used to warn readers about the content, or whether it was intended to draw editor attention to a specific' neutrality issue for it to be resolved. The NPOV tag is intended to be carefully employed so that any one faction cannot use it to grump about content discussions they lost out in.

The intention of the tag is to use it as follows: someone spots a neutrality issue, they tag the page, they post about it on the talk page, the issue is resolved and the tag removed. When I asked RockSound to note his specific neutrality issue (the step he missed) it seemed to be the case that "the page is trying to make K&S look guilty" was the overriding argument. We've been over that one ad-nauseum and I don't think that it is a very specific argument.

The intention of the tag is to let editors know there is a matter requiring their urgent attention on the talk page; given that the talk page is highly active anyway the tag seems redundant. It is specifically not to note that neutrality issues exist in the article (yes, an important distinction). If the tag exists long term you have to ask "why is the specific issue not resolved". To be specific; a general claim of lack of neutrality is not worth adding the tag for. If a specific issue is raised each and every time the tag should be added and removed.

I am concerned that the majority of those wanting to keep the tag wish to do so as a "warning" to readers, I for one am disinclined to let them circumvent the editing process and abuse Wikipedia to further their campaign. This persistent war of attrition to try and make the article exonerate Knox is disgusting, and having to fight against it and maintain the integrity of the encyclopaedia is one of the main reasons that the article is in a poor shape and contains inaccurate material.

Some editors legitimately seem to think the tag is useful; to them I say - has adding/removing the tag had any effect on the number of new editors participating here on the talk page?

For my own view; I see no legitimate argument that supports the idea that having the neutrality tag on the page is helpful in bringing more editors into discussion of specific neutrality issues. So we can safely remove it.

But this amount of argument over it? Why not put that attention into working on content. --Errant (chat!) 13:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On a meta topic; lets leave personal sniping and discussion of each other out of this. Tagging people as SPA, whilst possibly accurate, isn't really helpful - if an SPA makes a stellar, policy based argument then that holds as much weight as a similar argument from a non-SPA editor. If an admin has to come here and close the discussion (which is just going to be a mess anyway) then you'd hope they would check on each of the participants anyway, and consider the validity of the arguments on their own merits. On another matter commenting on peoples motives is simply not helpful and ends in a lengthy argument about whether a personal attack happened or not. First lets all grow some back bone and stop going mad at percieved attacks. And second lets comment on the arguments made, not the people making them. Things will be a lot politer then (well, maybe). Bottom line; don't get stressed or emotionally involved in this. It's just an article, it is not worth getting worked up over. --Errant (chat!) 13:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It seems to me that the NPOV in dispute tag is required because a process of improving the page has made very little progress so far. The nature of the debate here and the constant edit war makes the smallest of changes difficult to achieve (e.g. the discusssion of prosecutor Mignini's interview, orginally reported in the Sun.  This was a significant shift in his previously published views and would not have appeared in the Sun unless the paper was satisfied that the source was good, but no matter.).  Removing NPOV in dispute tag would suggest that a general consensus has now been achieved and this is far from the case.  I realise that I have litte editing experience but I do know what I am talking about, so no need to issue a badge of shame.  NigelPScott (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Errant's view above is slightly odd, seeing as he has admitted himself that sections of the article are POV in a unfairly pro-guilt way and in an unfairly pro-innocence way. I don't believe that these cancel each other out.  The article needs to be fixed and the POOV  problems addressed.  The gridlock here on this issue and the constant ad hominem attacks from editors who should know better are manifestations of why this article still has a POV problem.LedRush (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, Nigel's comment (in keeping with the theme of many of the "Keep" votes above) seems to me to be not so much about the content of the article as the users who are editing it (references to "the nature of the debate here" and "the constant edit war", etc.). Also, LedRush, if you are going to criticise others for "ad hominem attacks", please consider whether comments like this could be a little less retaliatory and a little more constructive.  Super Mario  Man  14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I would put it quite that way - most of the article is fine. Although some parts have been "stuffed" with advocacy views, I have no specific suggestions for fixing this, it is just my overview of the text. And I don't agree any of the article is unfair, or inaccurate to the level of causing me concern. Most of the problems arise from advocacy of one kind or other stalling article work. We can raise and deal with specific issues as they occur, but that is largely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the tag - which is intended to notify editors that a specific neutrality issue is being discussed on the talk page and urgently needs to be resolved. That's my last word on the tag issue :) just figure it out amicably. Although I maintain my disappointment that it seems to be being used to mark the article as problematic for readers. --Errant (chat!) 14:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove the tag. The NPOV tag should identify where the view has lost neutrality; it does not do that. Throughout this debate, that where question has been asked, but the question has been ignored, answered vaguely by referring to the article's general history, or answered specifically with narrow issues that don't impugn the neutrality of the article. At least one keep proponent has improperly viewed the NPOV tag as a warning to the reader. I've just reread the article, and it is a dull who, what, where, and when. My sense is those who want to keep the NPOV tag want more coverage about K and S's potential innocence and bad acts by the police and prosecutors. If that is the case, then that is an easy reason to state for the NPOV tag. The problem is the article doesn't cover more about their potetial guilt, either. Sharples' 2009 article in Time reported reasonable arguments for the defense (e.g., miscollection and contamination), but Sharples also described how Knox "positioned herself in front of a firing squad". Sharples' article didn't advocate for any position; neither does the current WP article. The WP article summarizes the judge's report; it describes the current appeal; it states media comments for both guilt and innocence; it recounts the Kercher family position; it gives a whole section about support for K and S. Where is the problem with a neutral point of view? -- Glrx (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are using an outdated article from 2009 to make your point. I understand your point that some would say the article should lean farther toward guilt. This is yet another reason to leave the tag. Your comment proves again that this article is highly contested. BruceFisher (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your comment a bit more? No offense, but it just looks weird at the moment. How do you mean an article from 2009? This is the real problem with SPIs, that with the best will in the world you just don't understand how we do business here. --John (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment was pretty straight forward. The article is outdated. 2 years is a long time especially when a story is in constant development. No reason to keep throwing around the "SPI" comments when there is no relevance to that point. I do understand how you do business here and it bothers you that you are being called out for how you do business. BruceFisher (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The 2009 article was an example of balance rather than using an "outdated" source. The time article covered both sides by reporting their positions and then stopping. It did not go into a lot of detail; it did show there was controversy.
 * That more could be said about the evidence does not impugn the article's neutrality. The article should not descend into a minutely detailed analysis of the case. This is an encyclopedia and not a forensics journal.
 * To me, the current failing of the article is that it does not state the obvious. MK was murdered. RG was convicted on strong evidence. RG could have been a "lone gunman", so why were K and S convicted in the first trial? Why do I have to read the Massei Report to get that understanding?
 * Glrx (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I didn't read any of the above because honestly it doesn't matter.  I'd have to be insane to think that there's isn't a nuetrality dispute over this article.  In fact, aside from Santorum (neologism), this is probably the most hotly contested article on all of Wikipedia today.  If there is no dispute, why does it keep showing up in my watchlist?  Why does it keep showing up at WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ANI, Jimbo's talk page, etc.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want to keep the tag to warn readers that it's a controversial topic? --John (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the tag is to attract new editors to the article in the hopes they can add fresh insight and help resolve the dispute. But I'm just pointing out the obvious insanity of claiming there isn't a NPOV dispute here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say the tag's purpose is to alert the reader that there may be a problem with what they are about to read, not solicit assistance. The problem here though is that there is a large off-wiki campaign to get this article to reflect The Truthtm, and they wish to leave the tag in place in perpetuity until they get their way.  This is not a new game in the Wikipedia; Israeli apartheid has tag wars on occasion when new users show up demanding that Israel not be referred to in any manner as practicing apartheid. Tarc (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "there is a large off-wiki campaign" do you have proof of this or is it just another baseless assumption? Are you talking about the petition or are you suggesting that users are gathering off Wikipedia? Isn't it possible that this case is highly controversial, leading new people here to see what's going on? BruceFisher (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has been pushed to various POV's and will continue to be pushed as we've seen over the past few months by some aggressive SPA's. Yup, it's a badge of shame, so let's keep the damn thing up so we don't have to fight about it. This is an utter waste of time over something that doesn't belong here, but it's not worth the effort fighting them to remove it. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The "keeps" clearly outnumber the "removes". Please post the NPOV tag back on the article. BruceFisher (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTVOTE & WP:DEMOCRACY. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 17:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Normal procedure is to wait for an uninvolved editor to analyse the discussion based on strength of arguments and then make a decision. In accordance with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:NOTVOTE, it is not simply a case of "Keeps" outnumbering "Removes".  Super Mario  Man  17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, no need to remind me that majority doesn't rule here. We all know that group coordination made by longstanding editors is the way to go. I am asking that the process be moved forward before it archives like you want it to. The tag was removed without consensus and now it must go through weeks of endless talk to work it out. No need to remind me that you have every right to remove anything and everything from the article that you like and send it into an endless discussion. I already know there is a WIki rule somewhere that allows it. Let's be adults here and come to a conclusion on this topic. It's obvious by all of this conflicting conversation that the tag belongs on this article. BruceFisher (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Conflicting conversation" relates to users editing the article (which a tag has nothing to do with) - neutrality (or lack thereof) relates to article content (which a tag has something to do with). Your claim that the tag was "removed without consensus" would seem to be inaccurate, given a glance at the earlier, now-archived discussion. Finally, the "Wiki rule" to which you allude is probably WP:BRD, a principle on which much of the editing at Wikipedia is based.  Super Mario  Man  19:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

SMM is wrong on two accounts. Any editor can put up the tag and discuss the specific changes that need to be made; that has been done repeatedly here and as such any editor should be allowed to restore the tag. A consensus is required to remove the tag. No consensus was ever reached, (a fact made abundantly clear in this thread) and the editors who removed it prematurely should respect wikipedia policies enough to restore the original tag.LedRush (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, comparing the two discussions on the subject of the NPOV tag, it's more a case of consensus changing rather than never having been "reached". Furthermore, since discussion has started, wouldn't it be inappropriate to restore the tag before that discussion ends?  Super Mario  Man  18:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience, it is not a consensus when a decision is reached in only 24 hours without hearing from any of the editors who would be expected to have differing views, in this case, the editors who have been trying to address what they perceive to be POV issues in the article. It should become even more clear that no consensus was reached as immediately after the discussion was closed, a slew of editors came to say that they did not agree with the removal or the sentiment that any consensus had been reached.LedRush (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Almost all the responses made up until the first removal of the tag were in favour of the proposal. How long should the initial discussion have been left open? Is closure supposed to be postponed indefinitely for the sake of holding out for a dissenting voice that may or may not arrive? If so, why does WP:SNOW exist? "... immediately after the discussion was closed, a slew of editors came to say that they did not agree with the removal or the sentiment that any consensus had been reached" - so, in other words, the initial consensus was challenged and now, depending on the outcome of this discussion, it may or may not change.  Super Mario  Man  20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees that in the first 24 hours of the discussion, there were few/no dissenters for removing the tag. I believe this time period is almost never acceptable to determine a consensus.  The fact that this is a highly contested article and only one side of the editors were represented (I don't mean one side for this specific issue, but a group of editors who generally agree with each other and have differing opinions to what they call the SPA's with agendas or the pro-innocent people) would also weigh very heavily in determining that the 24 hour period was not reasonable.  I did not say that closure should be postponed indefinitely, nor did I say that there was an initial consensus.  Kindly refrain from misrepresenting my views.LedRush (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, 24 hours is a full day - hence a full editing cycle passed. How much longer should the decision to remove have been put off? It is impossible to predict who may comment in future and who may not, or when. I would argue that, for the decision as to whether or not to remove a tag, which involves making no changes to the actual text of an article, 24 hours would certainly be long enough to determine consensus.  Super Mario  Man  20:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look at the discussion below this where Tarc seems to be saying that 24 hours is not long enough for consensus (and Ravensfire appears to say 4 days isn't enough) for the removal of information which is at best is in need of serious overhaul and at worst is a misleading BLP violation.LedRush (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that discussion concerns the proposed removal of text (rather than a tag, the presence or absence of which has no impact at all on how the article actually reads). Hence, for the purposes of reaching consensus, a longer timeframe is appropriate in the context of that discussion. As for "Tarc seems to be saying ..." and "Ravensfire appears to say ...", are you sure? That could be a misrepresentation of their views.  Super Mario  Man  15:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh This is certainly a controversial article, and there are various bits of it which are claimed as showing one point-of-view or another. So in that way the tag is appropriate. I would prefer if, rather than the blunt instrument of the tag, the claims of POV were targeted a little more finely to address specific points, this is happening here and there on the talk page, as it should. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo 18:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * With all of the discussion that goes on here is it really necessary to spend 3 more weeks listing all of the details that are disputed? As LedRush mentioned above, the tag was removed without consensus and now there is an awful lot of foot dragging going on to make sure it doesn't go back up. SuperMarioMan said: "wouldn't it be inappropriate to restore the tag before that discussion ends?" NO, it was wrong to REMOVE the tag before the discussion ended. SuperMarioMan is completely ignoring the fact that the tag was removed without consensus. BruceFisher (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * When taking the cursory glance at this point, I see 6 removes & 7 keeps...not a strong consensus to keep as you suggest..especially when considering the invalid arguments on the keep side. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My search gets 7 keeps and 5 removes with one vote that seems to recognize that the tag technically should be there if requested, but a preference for it not to be there. Also, it is easy to make blanket statements about invalid arguments.  For example, we have at least one editor that wants the tag and who has specific issues and who is discussing this, and no consensus to remove it, therefore any argument against it is invalid per wikipedia policy.
 * Also, I don't like the constant moving of the goal posts. There was never a consensus to remove the tag, so a deadlock here should mean the tag stays.  Even if that weren't true, any editor can add the tag as long as specific criticisms are being discussed, as Pablo recognizes above.  I've never read that a consensus is needed to add a tag, but it wouldn't be the first time there were rules out there I don't know about.LedRush (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The six removes that I get are myself, John, SMM, Tarc, Glrx, Errant ("So we can safely remove it")...I didn't tally Pablo either way. This is a small point; I'm not trying to be argumentative here but it isn't a case of snow as one might have gotten from Bruce's comments. As RockSound is the one who placed the tag, and now blocked with editing privileges revoked, I don't think there needed to be a consensus to remove. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 04:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who added it originally, because any one editor can add it if they discuss the specific issues here. However, Rocksound did not add the original tag as the tag was added in March.  Also, I have tried to re-add the tag while continuing to discuss the many POV issues, but I've been reverted.  Again, against WP policy.LedRush (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy added it in March and hasn't been here discussing it in quite some time. RockSound would have had to make his own new arguments and not backdate to DreamGuy's tagging. Specifically, WP:DRIVEBY states


 * Without justification, the tag may be pulled down by any editor without the need for any consensus. This is not against policy and I've pulled the tags off many articles because of misapplication. Would you please quote that which you think is a violation of policy?


 * Sidenote: It would matter who added it originally. Had RockSound or any other blocked editor been the one to add the tag, it could be pulled right out without consensus (or didn't you know that?). Blocked editors' opinions and edits no longer count. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

No discussion about neutrality issues was started on this article's talk page.

Discussions about neutrality issues have stopped (for more than a few days).

The problems in the article have been resolved.

All editors involved in the article agree to remove it."


 * None of the four criteria have been met. Your point about an original tag-adder being banned might have some validity if the original adder was banned (he's not) or if there weren't several other editors saying they would like to keep the tag who also are discussing specific issues.  Also, while not directly on point, the criterium regarding removing the tag after "more than a few days" of ceased discussions regarding neutrality should be instructive as to whether a 24 hour speed consensus for removal is reasonable.


 * Finally, I don't suppose I could hope that you will be more civil in your future comments, could I?LedRush (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) There were no criteria met to add the tag in the first place, just large, bloated "I don't like it!" from a handful of armchair detectives who have already formed an opinion on the innocence of the defendants. Unless someone can identify a major and serious problem with the article, not just little "I don't like the way this is worded" or "why can't we add this source?" issues, then the tag stays off.  Every mildly controversial article's talk page has disagreements on content, that doesn't mean they call get immediately tagged as problematic. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 2) This will be an ironic and somewhat hypocritical phrasing, but it fits the situation; LedRush, please shut up about incivility. You have been directed...several times, by several editors...to file a report at WP:WQA if you feel someone has been incivil towards you.  You can't keep saying over and over and over "stop stop stop!" to people, it does no good, esp when those people do not feel they are being incivil.  If you wish to once and for all get an outside opinion on who is acting badly here, then, again, WP:WQA.  Repeated "OMG you're incivil" it itself incivil after awhile. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria were clearly met, and POV concerns are still raised and discussed now. Regarding incivility, the last two weeks or so has seen a huge increase in ad hominem comments meant to discredit the arguments of those making them.  This fosters resentment, a battleground mentality, and interferes with proper discussion.  It also incites less seasoned editors to bite back, giving others the perfect pretext for an opportunity to punish them.  The best way for me to stop asking you to be civil would be to actually be civil and stop making the ad hominem comments.LedRush (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The criteria was not met. As I said, an overall air of "I disagree" is not a valid reason to tag.  Many Wikipedia articles have many disagreements over content; tagging is for serious issues, and you and the SPAs have not identified a single serious issue that requires flagging the readers' attention to NPOV problems with what they are about to read.  As for civility, I see you missed the point yet again.  Nothing I have said to you is an attack or ad hominem; if you feel differently, GO THERE and try to get something done about it.  Otherwise, it will be you that will be the subject of a WQA, as I am tired of the constant lies and falsehoods.  Are we clear?  I certainly hope so. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proof of civility and lack of ad hominem attacks is to call me a liar and threaten me? As I have repeatedly said, I will only go to WQA in extraordinary circumstances.  I would hope that it's not too much to just try and be civil to ensure that we don't foster a battleground mentality here and chase away newer editors, either through rudeness or through admin actions.LedRush (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tarc compares this article to others that are "mildly controversial." Does anyone honestly feel that this article is mildly controversial? Ignoring the controversy doesn't mean it's not happening. The problem is that the controversy is being highlighted by users that Tarc has no respect for. This is most likely why Tarc has a difficult time realizing that he is attacking people. Tarc and others have an automatic mechanism that is designed to disagree with SPI's. SPI's are not welcome on Wikipedia no mater what the actual rules say. It is just assumed by Wiki veterans that all SPI's gather at secret locations to design attacks and then storm in on Wikipedia. This is simply not true and this mindset is working to harm Wikipedia. Everyone needs to stop trying to win the online debate and take a moment to use a little common sense. It is quite obvious that this article is highly controversial and contains information that is currently intensely disputed. BruceFisher (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, believe me there are far more wide ranging controversial topics, both in real life and on Wikipedia. On WP this rates somewhere near the top in ongoing controversial topics, but isn't the top by quite a stretch. In real life... it's just one of bazillions of controversial topics, and is somewhere in the middle of all of those with no special significance (except to those with an interest). Far more widely polarized controversial topics exits. But that doesn't seem relevant, other than instilling some perspective on the article.
 * I do, however, see part of your point here Bruce. Many of the SPA's here appear to be advocacy accounts, aiming to prove some kind of point about the case. Others are simply un-educated in Wiki-processes (or not quite in line with the aims of Wikipedia) and so run hard into the shields against dubious content.
 * The pro-Knox campaign appears to be quite well organized online - in the sense that it collaborates to discuss its view that Knox is innocent. It is clear from past article history that this has lead some editors ostensibly working together to prove Knox innocent. Such work has coloured the view of those who clearly view her as innocent, but are perhaps here more genuinely. This is stuff I am trying to take on board and work with, but it is hard because for every editor that is here in good faith there are as many (or more) blindly promoting a view without any regard for the sanctity of the content.
 * The article is controversial, one of many; these largely insignificant pieces of history that are currently so considered. We should try to detach ourselves from personal views on the article and work to record factual detail. This is why I always say; if you have a strong opinion on this topic, it is probably not the place for you to be editing. --Errant (chat!) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is not well suited for an article of this nature. I would love to see a factual article presented. You look at me as a guy who goes blindly forward believing in fairy tales. That's where you're wrong. This mindset causes much of the tension seen on the talk page. I don't pretend to be neutral and if you notice, I rarely edit the article. I am not "campaigning" for the article to read as I would like it to read. That would be an absurd position to take. I would like to see the article provide a neutral opinion of the events as they are currently playing out. News surrounding this case has changed drastically as time has gone by and the article should properly reflect those changes. The problem is that those who closely follow this case are not Wiki veterans so their arrival here has not been welcomed. Wikipedia veterans are very territorial and seem to think they need to defend sacred ground every time someone new shows up. The recent claims made against me that I am a sock looks to have been done in pure haste simply because I defended another SPI when they were accused of the same violation. It would be nice to see Wiki veterans lighten up a little bit and realize that no one is here to try to take over their prized possession. Most new users are here to contribute to a topic that they are well educated on. In real life some things are as simple as they appear. Not everything is a grand conspiracy. I believe many Wiki veterans have shown interest in this article simply because they feel it's their duty to swat away SPI's. SPI's are often referred to as "problems" by these editors on their talk pages. The only organized group campaign working against this article can be seen right in front of your eyes on all of their talk pages. Anyone that takes the position of these editors has taken a side, whether they would like to admit it or not. Do some SPI's get hot headed, of course. Keep in mind that they are attacked immediately upon arrival. Do some come here that have no knowledge acting as if they are experts? of course, happens on both sides of the debate. The format will never be perfect but Wikipedia should embrace those who come to offer their knowledge on subjects they are well educated in. Unfortunately that is not the current mindset here. BruceFisher (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This long conversation and split vote has shown that there was NEVER concensus to remove the NPOV tag. Someone jumped the gun in removing it within a day. It should never have been taken down without concensus and those who took it down should admit that there was not a clear consensus to remove the tag and put it back up. Issymo (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The tally is now 6 keeps and 6 removes. GeniusApprentice is indef blocked as a sockpuppet of CandaceDempsey and I have struck through their !vote above. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 01:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as we don't need a consensus to add the tag, and there was never a consensus to remove it, it's time for the removal to be reverted.LedRush (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with all of this. -- Truth  Mom  04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What you need to to articulate a reason as to why a tag needs to be placed on the article. So far, you have not, and if you re-add it now it will be reverted on sight.   Try making editing suggestions on the talk page for awhile without needing to place the proverbial "badge of shame", you may find it is more productive. Tarc (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason has been articulated very clearly here and in other places. The tag should not be removed unless the criteria mentioned above have been met, which they have not.  Just because you don't agree with the POV issues brought up doesn't mean they don't exist.   The whole point is that we discuss them here until resolution.LedRush (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't articulated clearly. I asked you to quote the policy that you said you thought was being violated but instead, you quoted from the template documentation and not from a policy. That same set of instructions carries the reasons why it was misapplied as has been articulated here. "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." and "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please immediately explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag." Attempting to keep the tag up in perpetuum is certainly incorrect usage as well as one editor reverting to replace the tag without stating their case upheld by a balance of reliable sources and not their personal opinions ("An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality reliable sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors are irrelevant.") <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 05:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it can't be any clearer. Several editors have made express their specific concerns about POV, including me, and all the criteria for a tag are met.  I would love for new established editors, not the well-organized group we have now, would come in.  Unfortunately, these type of marathon discussion keep away almost everyone except the SPAs and the current group of established editors.  The tag could help this problem.LedRush (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep For what to me are obvious reasons. I second the motion to get new editors to come in. Dougbremner (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy-based reasons? Otherwise, it just looks like "me too!" <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it not a policy based opinion that the POV issues specifically raised would be better addressed by attracting new editors through a POV tag (which is the stated goal of the tag)?LedRush (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What he said. And the fact that there are pages and pages of comments about the simple issue of whether or not to have a tag. Besides I thought you were asking for a "vote" not a dissertation about the rationale for it. Dougbremner (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, these things aren't votes. Arguments are weighed and that is used to decide consensus.  See WP:notavote.  Established editors can usually get away with saying things like "Per above, I agree", but SPAs are asked to articulate the opinions for themselves.  The actual benefit of copying the argument rather than just referring to it are lost on me, but, that's the way it is.LedRush (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I was responding to Berean Hunter's comment of "six for, six against". If you have a problem with the use of the word "vote" you should take it up with him. To be more specific about the question of whether or not this article should have a NPOV tag, I think that it should, because some editors are going to unreasonable lengths to keep some information out of the article. To whit, the 100 lines of discussion about whether to include the fact that the appeal of Sollecito will include an argument for a revised time of death based on the stomach contents. In the discussion of NPOV disputes it specifically states that the omission of certain facts can be inferred to be a violation of NPOV. I submit that the refusal to allow the entry of the stomach contents is such a violation. See below for my summary of the objections and my responses. Dougbremner (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and that is why SPAs are not given much weight in such a poll. They haven't taken time to learn policies and guidelines. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 02:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are using SPAs as a pejorative term. If you are implying that mine is an SPAs you are wrong, I have edited other pages in the past. The use of SPA as a pejorative term is a violation of Wikipedia policies in regard to the treatment of newcomers which stipulate that experienced editors should show patience with newcomers who are not familiar with policies and procedures and "not bite the newcomers". Dougbremner (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are failing to assume good faith, violating that policy. Pointing out that a particular editor is a SPA is making a simple statement - that a particular editor has little or no experience outside of a particular article.  Many new editors here have been shown a great deal of patience to no effect (see Cody as a prime example).  You have also been shown a fair amount of patience as editors have tried to point out various issues and concerns with you've dismissed fairly quickly.  Are you a SPA?  Close to call - low numbers of edits, most of which are on this article or talk page.  Go with just 2011, and it shifts even more.  SPA is not a perjorative term, it's a descriptive label of a certain type of editor often seen on WP.  If you choose to take it as such, that's your right, but don't assume that editors intend it that way.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you have been scrutinizing my prior edits demonstrates that you are more interested in the editors than the neutrality of the article. Have you been scrutinizing Pablo X's shameful black list of editors? I debated the topic of inclusion of the most important aspect of the appeal and my reasons for its inclusion are below and unrefuted. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, however. I will have no further comment on the stomach contents issue until a more experienced editor other than the one who has written dozens of comments on this page weighs in to this bizzaroworld of a Wikipedia page. Dougbremner (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, such a predictable response. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. It has already been removed. NigelPScott (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The majority think it should be added back but as we often find out, majority doesn't really matter anyway. We must all be meeting at my house to discuss our plans. There can't possibly be any way that this controversial article has brought new people here. The majority must be meatpuppetry! BruceFisher (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion
So do we do another re-vote? Or is the plan to not discuss this further and let it archive and win by archive? There CLEARLY was NEVER concensus that the tag should have been removed. It should be put back up.
 * Keep There was no concensus to remove the tag an it should be put back. Issymo (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] — Duplicate !vote: Issymo (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
 * You're right. It couldn't be more obvious that there was no consensus to remove this.  But, as stated above, anyone can add it back at any time, though you should probably restate the specific issues you have with the POV of this article if you do.  I know this has been done many times before, but procedures...LedRush (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, you already "voted" earlier, thus I have tagged this entry as a duplicate. Second, the 'consensus' carping is a red herring of an argument.  The point of a tag is to identify an article's SPECIFIC problems on the talk page here, initiating a discussion as to HOW TO FIX these problems.  No one has ever done this; all that you and a handful of others have done is argue from a position of "I do not like the article", amidst general complaining about people getting blocked, censorship, cliques, and so on and so on.  As I said above, there are thousands of articles in the Wikipedia where disagreements rage; they don't get NPOV tagged just because people disagree.  Seriously, drop this tagging nonsense and just move on with actual editing issues.  We have several sup-topics below with lively discussion.  Join those, drop this. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tarc is right - this is getting ridiculous, and is the same as the Knox article thread below. A number of accounts want a separate Knox article but they can't actually come up with a list of information that should be in such article that isn't in this one; the same accounts want an NPOV tag slapped on the article but can't actually identify the specific parts of the article that are POV, or why. It's like me going to my local car dealer and saying "I'd like you to give me a brand new car". When the car dealer says "Why?", my reply being "I dunno. I'd just like one". Would I get the car? Of course I wouldn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've specifically set out information that would be included in a Knox article (much not included here), and many people have set out specific POV issues with this one.LedRush (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there's nothing apart from bare "it needs to be there" statements in this particular thread, so if that's the case, could you (or someone else) please present it in a single place? It is impossible for anyone - even people familiar with the page - to determine anything if bits of information are spread around over hundreds of lines of talkpage discussion. Just start a new Level 3 section called "The reasons why an NPOV tag should be applied here" and bullet-point the list. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

POV Issues
Already brought up POV issues/discussions
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_27#NPOV_tag
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher/Archive_32#Mounting_challenge_to_the_neutrality_of_this_article

Current POV issues (these are just arguments I've remembered-please add as you like)
 * 1) Improper labeling of Knox and Sollecito's legal status as appeal progresses
 * 2) Inadequate and improper explaination of appeals process
 * 3) Lack of information on Mignini
 * 4) Lack of information on prosecution theories
 * 5) "Support" section doesn't accurately weight the importance of the supporters
 * 6) Information from Moore and Heaney routinely deleted
 * 7) Criticism of police (lack of lawyer for Knox in interrogation, lack of recording of interviews, lack of interpreter for Knox in interrogation, poor evidence collection)
 * 8) Inclusion of the shoe evidence
 * 9) No defense argument for prosecution's staged break-in theory
 * 10) Guede's assertions of the crime over time

Anyway, that's the best I can do off the top of my head. For my proposed Knox article format, please see the hatted discussion below.

I would invite others to add to the list as they see fit.LedRush (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on points
Berean's initial comments in red...anyone feel free to comment under any point...


 * Improper labeling of Knox and Sollecito's legal status as appeal progresses
 * Are there reliable sources which state this? I believe this is what we were waiting on. If there are and we don't state it then it might be an NPOV issue but if not it isn't.
 * I'm not sure about the sources (for some reason, I think we got some good primary, but not secondary), but there would still be ways to address our language in the article to make it more precise.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, there are three sources below on this page.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're right. I think we should work this into the K&S appeals section. If that occurs, does a full explanation of the point below still need to expounded upon? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Inadequate and improper explaination of appeals process
 * Same question as above...sources? I believe Salvio's excellent explanation but we need sources (English). Also, the appeals process isn't usually an NPOV issue in any crime article is it? It may good to include but isn't a basis for NPOV argument.
 * I guess the POV issue would be tied with the above comment.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is still the correct format to discuss these issues, should we move Errant's suggested language here? I think the beginning could address questions 1 and 2.LedRush (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeh sorry I got tied up answering OTRS tickets tonight - am going to try and chuck that content in boldly now and see how it goes - bear with. --Errant (chat!) 22:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lack of information on Mignini
 * I'll assume that you mean crticisms of Mignini's conduct/actions in this case. The problem is that it is all assertions and the authorities have never ruled/commented on this...it is just accusations at this point which may be BLP vios against him
 * We have many RSs which have commented on this in detail.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you or someone else state suggested wordings (preferably at the bottom of this page)? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lack of information on prosecution theories
 * This might be good to elaborate on (needs further explanation) but I don't see how it is an NPOV issue. We don't want to get into the situation of tit-for-tat having every counter point from the defense introduced for every prosecution theory, right?
 * Presenting only the sane prosecution theories seems a clear POV issue to me...it's filtering to make the prosecution look better.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the court dealt with it dismissively and it bore no outcome upon the case, I don't see where it has relevance. Mignini brought it up and they shrugged it off...not much to tell. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Support" section doesn't accurately weight the importance of the supporters
 * That isn't an NPOV issue at all. Explanation needed.
 * I think this was Jimbo's comment. I think he was saying that we needed to really explain how deep Knox's support was, but I'm not sure.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Information from Moore and Heaney routinely deleted
 * How is that NPOV issue? In fact, adding it may create one as it is pro-innocence conjecture.
 * Deleting opinions of people commonly quoted in RSs seems like a clear issue to me.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no. Opinions in RSs are dismissed all the time. Do you think that every single published RS with a criticism on George Bush the younger is obligatory in his article? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue is that what they were saying was seen as important, but was dismissed because they weren't "notable" enough.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Criticism of police (lack of lawyer for Knox in interrogation, lack of recording of interviews, lack of interpreter for Knox in interrogation, poor evidence collection)
 * Poor evidence collection is an issue for the court to decide (and they may) but not for theorists. This has yet to be established as fact by an authority. Lack of lawyer - is that an issue under Italian law? Lack of recordings (they were made, right?), I agree this should be mentioned and can be found in sources. Lack of interpreter - maybe.
 * Poor evidence collection has been noted in RSs. And none of the information we include in here should be for a court to decide (what an odd comment).  Under international law, I believe Knox was required to have a lawyer, but I'm not sure under Italian law.  I know that this is a common criticism of the police, though.  Recordings of Knox's interview were either made then destroyed or not made at all, the subject of criticism in RSs.  Ditto the interpreter.LedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not there was poor evidence collection has been put forth by theorists. It is, at current, fringe theory and not validated as fact. I agree that the bit on recordings should be mentioned but not convinced that this can't be worked in somewhere without having a full section police criticisms. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 16:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please support your assertion that the poor evidence collection is a fringe theory. Of course we do not need information validated as fact to be included here, as there is much opinion and conjecture already in the article.  But when RSs reference opinions on poor evidence collection (something that will always be an opinion and not a fact), I believe it is POV to omit.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, not only do American scientists, forensic experts, retired FBI agents, judges and lawyers say that the evidence collection was poor, the court-appointed forensic experts do as well. I think it's fair to say it's not a fringe theory.  This is just another example of criticism of the conduct of the prosecution/police.  These instances are well covered in RSs, and should be incorporated into the text of the article.LedRush (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article 141 of the Italian CPP (code of criminal procedures) states that statements made be suspects that are not recorded cannot be used in a court of law. Article 111 of CPP states that suspects have the right to a lawyer present when questioned. Mignini in an interview with CNN states that a recording of Knox was not performed because of 'budget problems'. For these reasons the Supreme Court ruled that Knox's statements could not be included in a court of law. Dougbremner (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of the shoe evidence
 * I believe this was disputed and opens a can of worms as opposing sides need to be presented...do we want to get that detailed? That said, the Nike Outbreak 2 shoes are probably worth mentioning. I don't see this as NPOV, though.
 * I think the point was that editors wanted to delete the mention of the shoe-print as it wasn't used in K&S's trial.LedRush (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But it was presented as evidence in the K&S trial. ref. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  17:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No defense argument for prosecution's staged break-in theory
 * Maybe it would be better to pull out that theory. Above on another point, there is a call to expand the prosecutions theories...are we going to need to have a counter-argument for every one of them? We are trying to avoid a blow-by-blow account, right? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  (<b style="color:#00C">(⊕)</b>) 00:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't like the idea of filtering the theories. I'd rather explain themLedRush (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The conviction on the first level was completely based on the staged break in theory. Dougbremner (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So, does the silence mean that the POV tag goes back, as there are clearly many specific open points? Or does it mean that everything I've identified can be changed to NPOV? Does it mean everyone is on summer vacation or doing something more meaningful with their lives? Or are people trying to ignore the situation in the hopes that it (or me) goes away?LedRush (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reached the point where I don't really care on way or another what tag people want to put on the article. Too much time has been spend moaning about it either being included or removed to very little gain (yep, me included). My final stance on the matter is this; I have an underlying concern that the tag is being replaced (at least by some, not all) to notify readers rather than to attract more comment on the talk page, and that placing the tag will not have the desired effect of bringing more editor contribution to the issues raised above. This sits as a bad taste in my mouth as an abuse of the tagging process.
 * One final point; I suggest that anyone replacing the tag makes a substantial effort to propose solutions to the problems listed above to show that they are making the effort to resolve them. The reason for this is that if the discussion of these problems becomes dormant after the tag is placed then, per the tag requirements, it must be removed. I am working lightly on the first two issues but am a bit tied up at the moment to address them fully. The rest... someone else will have to deal with ASAP. --Errant (chat!) 14:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted. Now's the time to discuss.  So, what criteria for the tag hasn't been met?LedRush (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, what criteria for the tag hasn't been met?; the only criteria for the tag is that someone raises an POV issue here on talk. You appear to be doing so. So fine; but now you have done so you must discuss the specific issues and resolve them via consensus within a short time. Once discussion goes stale, consensus agrees or the issues are resolved the tag is removed. --Errant (chat!) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your "huh?" or your response. I added the tag after pointing out the POV issues and announcing that I planned to add the tag.  The only response to that announcement was your, which seemed indifferent.  I took that to mean I could add the tag.  I got reverted.  I brought up many specific issues.  After some discussion, everyone went away.  So, can I just change the article based on my points, or will I be mass reverted (hint, I'll be mass reverted)?  So, I've brought up the issues here with the hopes of resolving them here.  I've added the tag per this discussion and to prompt more discussion, preferably with some new editors as well as old ones.  Isn't that the point of the tag?LedRush (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I agreed that points 1 & 2 should be addressed...do you have any wording that you would suggest? On point 3, I requested some suggested wording which has never occurred. (I haven't seen any mass reverting. :) <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  00:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a little confused, it seems that everyone agrees that all we need for the tag is what has been provided, so why was I reverted?LedRush (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well no, I don't see that. "Everyone agrees" - obviously not. So, trying to move forward, your suggested wordings with cites? ...also, in your opinion, does this article make Knox & Sollecito look guilty? ...look innocent? Where do we stand? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  01:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Process is important, and this just isn't how it works. I want more editors (so far it's basically been you) to comment, and I've identified many specific issues.  What more would I have to do to show that the tag is warranted?  (BTW, I really do appreciate your comments and willingness to work on this, but the process is important, and it should be adhered to).LedRush (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that helps because I would love to see things moving forward. Right now, getting full participation may be difficult because we are moving into a holiday weekend but looking at a potential bright side, there is less chatter. I'd suggest focusing on the underlying reasons why folks wanted the tag in the first place...neutrality. Like Errant said, the idea is to get moving towards resolution...so let's go. :) Others will join if they are available. Let's work on the stuff I've mentioned above. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  01:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy to work on the identified issues above and whittle down my list. However, as I have said, I believe that the process is important.  I feel that I have met the conditions to have the tag, and Errant seems to agree above.  Let's put it up, see if it helps get more participation, and get moving.  This may seem trivial to you, but to me, it is indicative of how things should be working on this page.LedRush (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the one discussing here...the tag issue above has several users with stated reasons and it is not mine to mitigate. I don't decide for them (I actually view the above straw poll above as having no consensus one way or the other). That is no reason to halt forward progress. Come on, issues 1,2, & 3 above, please. Let's try to solve this. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was not asking you to mitigate other users' positions, merely to follow WP guidelines on how to deal with these issues. Hopefully we will reach a sensible compromise and move past this issue quickly, as you seem more than willing to address my concerns (and for that I thank you again).LedRush (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Silence does not mean "that everyone agrees that all we need for the tag is what has been provided". Many people commented on the tag above; that one of those voices now states some indifference does not mean the tag now has universal support. That some editors choose not to join in endless debate does not mean that their comments should be ignored. Silence can also mean agreement with views stated by others (the whole WP:NOTAVOTE thing).
 * I must have missed you "announcing that I planned to add the tag"; I read your comments as you were uncertain how to proceed.
 * The tag does not have a clear statement identifying a non-neutral point of view. It's a list of topics that are / might be covered in the article.
 * I did not comment on your list of points above. For the most part, those topics do not unduly slant the article. Many items were previously debated. Some items are arguably irrelevant. That the prosecutor made illegal wiretaps in another case need not touch the current case where wiretaps are not at issue. I might be OK with the article mentioning it, but it is primarily speculative. The desired implication is an overzealous prosecutor went after K & S. Did the prosecutor coerce the DNA experts? Did the prosecutor coerce witnesses? Did the prosecutor coerce the panel? The item about the failure to record AK's initial interview is better fixed by adding a sourced statement to the article rather than a dull POV tag. I don't an effort to suppress such a statement. Moore and Heanley are poor sideshows; their presence in the list suggests a lack of perspective. Five years down the road, are they going to matter at all? Why do they matter now? They are hardly prominent individuals. The article should not be an extensive laundry list of all people who support innocence. Neither should it have an extensive list of those who support the judgment in the first instance.
 * The article should not become a newspaper offering day-to-day developments in the appeal. Neither should the article become a comprehensive non-fiction book about the trial -- or even a lengthy term paper. WP is an encyclopedia; it need not and should not descend into excruciating detail or replay all the arguments. Filters are appropriate.
 * As to NPOV, when I first read this article, I was mystified how K & S could have ever been convicted. I thought their lawyers must have been inept. I didn't know that Guede had ever met Knox, so how could K & S act in concert with him? I had to read the Massei report to get an appropriate sense of the prosecution's case and the competence of the defence. Today, the article still gives that odd impression, but I don't consider that a POV problem. In a sense, it suggests why there is public controversy about the case.
 * FWIW, I want to see K & S acquitted, but the case is muddy. I'm troubled that the Massei Report accepted a lot of thin argument, but even if one were to say there is no DNA evidence against K & S and threw out the cartwheels, the hanging back, the screams in the night, and the silly pornography, then the prosecution still has a circumstantial case.
 * Glrx (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than try and argue WP process with you, I would direct you to the compromise solution below.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tag Resolution Suggestion
I propose the following. I put the tag up with an expected expirary of two weeks. We address the 10 issues I've raised (and any others that come up). When we, through consensus, decide (a) the issue isn't one of POV (but perhaps there is an issue), (2) there is no issue or (3) the issue has been addressed in the article, we remove that item from the list. If at the end of two weeks we are still working towards consensus on open issues, the tag stays up until the discussions are finished. If, at the end of two weeks, the discussion is stale or all issues have been resolved by consensus (not resolved according to my view, meaning, if consensus agrees it's not an issue, it's "resolved"), we remove the tag. If the tag remains after two weeks, we need to continue actively resolving the issue. If the discussion grows stale for (let's say) 3 days on the outstanding topics, the tag gets removed.LedRush (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Support if Tarc's suggestions on limitations are met below. Glrx, Tarc & Mario bring up valid points. As Errant says, compromise is good. I'd feel better if someone were making good faith efforts to work towards resolve. Instead, SPAs are showing up to !vote and not contributing any suggestions on moving forward. Where are the suggested wording(s)? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Amended.  <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  22:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Willing to compromise on this - it's not the end of the world to have the tag back up for a bit seeing as we *are* now working on a couple of issues. So long as it is removed properly :) --Errant (chat!) 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The suggestion above is a massive curtailment of the original policy, which contemplates anyone being able to put up the tag and everyone needing to agree (or the discussions to grow stale/reach resolution) to come down. Let's say we change the proposal as contemplated.  Then, 12 days into it we get a legitimate POV concern but the currently listed ones get resolved on the 13th day.  Do we take the tag down despite the concern?  Under the guidelines, anyone can place the tag up in the situation I mentioned. We'd basically be saying regardless of how huge a POV situation we discover, we will not use the tag at all unless listed now. LedRush (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I read the suggested removal of the clause again, I see I misread it. The removal of the phrase merely creates the possibility of ending the terms of the agreement regarding these suggestions and this tag earlier than otherwise, thus making the tag policy return to the normal wikipedia guidelines.  While I'd prefer that this agreement cover all the POV issues raised in this time to ensure that we have incentive to work towards a goal quickly, I'm fine with the regular wikipedia policy, as I believe it adequately deals with this situation anyway.LedRush (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose (ec). I do not see the list as meriting a POV tag at this time. Furthermore, the plan uses the POV tag as a bargaining chip: resolve these issues or the tag stays. It's open ended because the list can grow. It sets a strange burden on a consensus: if no consensus, the tag stays. I view the suggestion as a poor compromise. There is not a block on adding material to the article now. Even without the tag, the list topics can and are being discussed. What is the point of the tag? Glrx (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A tag can be added by any one editor when they identify POV issues in the article and bring them to the attention on the talk page. It is designed to call attention to the issues, to facilitate discussion and to attract more editors to discuss these issues.  The tag can be removed when the discussions have concluded or have gone stale or everyone agrees to remove it.  This compromise is actually putting much stricter limits on how a tag works than Wikipedia itself puts on it.  I  have offered this as a way around this issue.  Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV to learn more about how the process is supposed to work.LedRush (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But where is the discussion about neutrality issues? If the discussion lapses for a few days, then the tag is removed. We get a list thrown up on June 21, there is some topic discussion (not nec. about neutrality) until about June 24. Then 5 days later (ie, a few days) you comment about the silence. If the tag were up, the period of silence should have killed the tag. Even if there were POV discussions about some of the items, most of the list should be viewed as expired. This is not putting stricter limits on the POV policy. Glrx (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I follow your comments. The discussion on neutrality would occur from now until the issues are resolved.  Seeing as the policy allows anyone to put up a tag as long as they raise specific issues regarding neutrality, but this plan would seek to more specifically regulate the ability to take down the tag (by having a definite, short time; by requiring only consensus; by getting everyone on board with the idea of endeavoring to solve issues within two weeks) I fail to see how this is anything but a dramatic restriction on the ability to tag the article per the guidelines.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal is much stricter than the current policy. If the discussion lapses for a few days, then the tag should come down. No consensus is required. This discussion has already lapsed for several days on occasion. Template:POV item 2. Glrx (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - As per my initial suggestion and per Template:POV LedRush (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. If it means ending this interminable discussion, I'm all for LedRush's plan, and I thank him for articulating it so clearly. Equally, Glrx puts forward a number of excellent points, especially about open-endedness. I'm still concerned that there is a bit too much emphasis here on simply having the tag for its own sake, or as a banner or a warning. Nevertheless, I have no concrete objections to this proposal for compromise.  Super Mario  Man  19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that the actual policy on Templates is far more open-ended than my proposal Template:POV. However, I understand peoples' concerns regarding this, which is why I built in the 2-week goal, the 3-day stale period, and the need for consensus on the issues (instead of "all editors" agreeing to remove the tag as the policy states).  I feel these are three major concessions towards fears of open-endedness.LedRush (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Should be put back up. Issymo (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Until when? <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite. As I suggested, sometimes the focus seems to be not so much on fixing perceived problems as simply whether or not the article should be tagged.  Super Mario  Man  20:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Tag should be up. Turningpointe (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, unless the "and any others that come up" bit is stricken. We have 14 days for 10 issues, it'd be much better to proceed with a specific parameter rather than have n escape clause to add every possible future grievance. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Tarc. --John (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)