Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/NPOV


 * {| class=wikitable width="80%"

This page discusses an WP:NPOV dispute about issues in article "Murder of Meredith Kercher". Also see main talk-page.
 * - style="background:#FFBB22;"
 * Info_icon.svg


 * }

NPOV tag
As an experienced editor with a background in crime topics and a lot of experience with NPOV conflicts, I was asked to take a look at this article. I would have to agree that this is a very troubling article. As such I placed an NPOV tag on it.

While many of the comments in the open letter are obviosuly coming from people with a particular view, that does not change the fact that this article is horribly slanted. For example, there have been many reliable sources and many people involved in questioning the verdicts against Knox and Sollecito, but to read this article the lead suggests it's all over and done with and they are guilty and the "Knox supporters" section (I guess we are to believe no one supports Sollecito) is worded like it's only her family, a PR campaign and a single senator who thinks it was anti-American. There are at least two mainstream books that tackle the case and support the idea that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, and there are many supporters of that view, included a former member of the FBI and several experts on forensics in multiple countries.

The part that is devoted to the possibility of innocence of Knox and Sollecito is so incredibly tiny as to give WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that they killed Kercher. Sorting through the mentions of specific claims about the evidence is going to be difficult, as many sources conflict, but I note that so far the article goes out of its way to ridicule any claims made by the defense. For example it all but promotes the idea that there could not possibly be any DNA contamination based upon a judge's statement that there could be no contamination of DNA because there would be nothing for it to be contaminated with, which several reliable sources can and have readily disputed (we would expect the house to have some DNA of both Knox and Sollecito in it, and the lab itself would also have some, obviously, both of which could easily contaminate the process, especially under the conditions).

Obviously digging through all this is going to take a while, and I hope that editors will take all of this seriously instead of merely pretending there is no problem. Certainly some of the impassioned responses above to Jimmy Wales' concerns show a troubling indication of devotion to a specific outcome for the article instead of concern about following Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When you speak of "the part that is devoted to the possibility of innocence of Knox and Sollecito", I'm not sure I understand. I don't think the article currently discusses whether they are guilty or innocent or guilty. Do you think it should do? Thanks. Bluewave (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article should not take a side on that (and currently by the slant of the presentation it clearly does take a side), but the main reason this topic is even notable at all is because of the controversy, and reading the original lead and content would suggest there is no controversy and they are guilty as sin. If the prosecution makes a claim that is disputed by the defense, the lawyers for Knox and Sollecito should also get equal space for their opposite claim. If the police forensics expert who was called testify claims one thing and other forensics experts who have given their opinion on the case say something different then both sides should be mentioned. DreamGuy (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right now the article contains following paraphrase of Amanda's note: "She 'stood by' her accusation of Lumumba, but said that she could not clearly remember whether she was at her flat or Sollecito's house at the time of the murder." This paraphrase seems slanted. Her exact words are "'I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.'" I think rephrasing or replacing that paraphrase with direct quote would contribute towards neutral point of view.Matrass (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "stood by" remark is a dishonest paraphrase. But even more disturbing is that the line is written such that it appears this supposed "standing by" was done at her trial!  Which is entirely false.  And the article also reads as if she testified- at her trial- that she could not remember if she was at the murder scene at the time of the murder! Again, completely false.  (This paragraph's exclamation marks are intended to suggest how deceitful and pernicious I consider the referenced falsehoods to be).67.21.194.157 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)lane99


 * One thing I think is relevant is that sources have been systematically excluded based on what I can only term "original research" arguments. Additionally, we see a rhetorical technique of lumping together obviously irrelevant "celebrity arguments" like Donald Trump and serious and important critiques from people like Pulitzer Prize winner Timothy Egans.  Quotes from Egans are omitted, and as he is not a household name, lumping him together with Trump (who is a household name, and who is not in any obvious way qualified to comment at all) suggests that he's just another of a list of perhaps-not-very-credible complainants.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved this topic "NPOV tag" to this page, from Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive_27 to prevent re-deletion by the archive bot MiszaBot. -Wikid77 05:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)