| Revision as of 22:03, 8 June 2010 editBlack Kite (talk | contribs)Administrators85,117 edits →Amanda Knox ready for separate article?: blimey← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:44, 20 December 2024 edit undoJas88 (talk | contribs)63 edits →Guede speaks: ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected. If you want to request an edit on this page click ]}} |
|
{{WPB|blpo=yes|1= |
|
|
|
{{British English|date=September 2010}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=no|class=C|listas=Murder Of Meredith Kercher|priority=}} |
|
|
|
{{Afd-merged-from|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|19 December 2009}} |
|
{{WP Crime|class=C}} |
|
|
|
{{ITN talk|5 December|2009}} |
|
{{WikiProject Death|class=C}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|blp=other|listas=Kercher, Murder Of Meredith| |
|
{{WP Italy|class=C}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Corinne|date=5 December 2015}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{top 25 report|January 26, 2014}} |
|
{{British-English}} |
|
|
|
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes| |
|
{{reqphoto|in=Italy}} |
|
|
|
{{Merged-from|Meredith Kercher|13 November 2007}} |
|
{{ITNtalk|5 December|2009}} |
|
|
|
{{Merged-from|Amanda Knox|13 November 2007}}}} |
|
{{oldafdfull|page=Murder of Meredith Kercher|date=31 December 2007|result='''keep'''}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|Trial of Knox and Sollecito|19 December 2009}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Meredith Kercher|13 November 2007}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|Amanda Knox|13 November 2007}} |
|
|
{{anchor|TOC}} |
|
|
{{auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot|age=30}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 70K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|counter = 22 |
|
|counter = 38 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{Notice|{{find}}}} |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |
|
{{Ambox |
|
|
|
|mask=/Archive <#> |
|
| type = content |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
| image = ] |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
| text = This article is going through a major rewrite which was outsourced to a subpage located ]. You are welcome to assist by editing it. Further information can be found ] and ] below at the talkpage. |
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Restored omission: Police released Guede days before murder == |
|
|
|
|
|
''11-Feb-10:'' The article has been re-expanded to note that Rudy Guede had been caught with a large stolen knife (16-inch, 40-cm) inside a closed Milan school on 27-Oct-07 (5 days before the murder) with a laptop PC reported stolen 14-Oct-07 from a Perugia law office burgled with a rock breaking an upstairs window. The Perugia police were notified Guede had the laptop, plus a cellphone also stolen from the Perugia office with the broken window. However, Guede was released by the Milan police, and not transferred to the Perugia police, as testified by the two Perugia solicitors (attorneys) at the Knox/Sollecito trial hearing on 26-June-2009 and by the school director 27 June. Hence, the reports of Guede holding a woman's watch, a hammer, a stolen knife and stolen property from a prior upstairs-window burglary could be confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, and the 2 solicitors (lawyers Palazzoli and Paolo Brocchi) whose PC, printer and mobile phone were stolen on 14-Oct-07. I regret these major events had been omitted from the article, even until late December, while the details had been in major news reports in June 2009. The details are not rumors, but rather, confirmed by Milan police, Perugia police, Judge Micheli, and court testimony of 3 professionals. See source "Knox Trial Witness Points Finger at Guede" by Ann Wise (Rome) 26Jun09, web: . -] 23:49, 11 February 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
== Expand: fingerprints & CCTV evidence == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are numerous reports about the 61 usable fingerprints, and CCTV evidence. Also, some claim that an additional security camera (overlooked) could have revealed the killer(s), but that camera was allowed to re-record before being checked. I think such details are pertinent, as to explaining the murder and efforts to solve it. -] (]) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:This goes for all the "expand" claims: I'm still waiting for your argument (besides "I think so") on why those factoids are so incredibly important that we need to cover them in each detail. So far, you've failed to convince most editors here. ] (]) 11:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Could you cite a reliable secondary source for these reports and CCTV evidence, and propose a specific edit to the article? Thanks. ] (]) 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Wikid77, It's going to be hard to come up with any sort of credible CCTV "evidence", especially since Knox & Sollecito's legal defence teams were unable to gain any traction with that. Essentially, you want to say "Trust us, there was "evidence" on that CCTV but it was erased". That sort of defence would not hold much weight with a jury. |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Who exactly is this "some" person or people that you claim "could" have revealed the killer? Sounds very far-fetched to me. ] (]) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: This is even more troublesome than the demands for expansion of the sections above. This is not just "hearsay", that is downright invention now. I have not found one single source, never mind a reliable one, that states any of your claims about a CCTV camera overlooking and beeing wiped clean by re-recording and that it would have shown the killer(s). Again, I obejct to the inclusion of any of this without a reliable '''secondary''' source. ] (]) 18:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notes, and a suggestion == |
|
|
|
|
|
As the invitation to rephrase has not been followed by every party, administrative action has been taken. As an observer without any stake in the article, I believe it still suffers from an unrepairable pile of multiple layers of newsflash style expansions that have been subsequently "balanced" by similar but opposing statements. It isn't an encyclopedic article, it's mostly a log of partisan statements as they occurred. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that this article be started over from scratch, restructured as a factual account: What happened, a brief recap of the investigation, a brief account of the judicial proceedings to the case. All of these simply listing the pure facts as found. Followed by a controversy and a media section, where the issues and the viewpoints can be explained. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let me add, again, that even if /when unblocks happen, any assumption of motive in another party and any disagreement expressed in a personalized fashion will lead to further blocks. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 12:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I agree with your suggestion of starting from scratch. The present article is such a mess of repetition that it is difficult to tackle one section without having to address similar material in other sections. If we go down this route, someone will need to propose an outline structure of sections and sub-sections, for discussion. I'd be happy to have a go at that...or equally happy if someone else wants to! But, first, let's see what people think about the proposal to rewrite. ] (]) 15:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Huge fan of rewrite from ground up. ] (]) 15:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Although some sections might be salvaged, in my opinion — for instance, the lead, as it is now, could be kept —, the article badly needs to be shortened an rewritten. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> (]) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Finally someone is talking sense. I am requesting this for weeks now and would give any support needed to achieve a better, clearer, shorter and much more objective article, which would read, as someone without any stakes what so ever in it, has written it. ] (]) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Agree (again) about that approach. There was a discussion about this before (and I don't see any need to search and link to it) as we have a new informal "RFC" right here. I too think we should start from scratch while using the existing article (at the state it is at the time I'm typing) as a base to determine what should be transferred and included in one way or another to the then new and enhanced article. I'd suggest creating a sub-page to work on and insert/replace it with the current page the moment it becomes "superior" (and make sure, no edit history gets lost, which is an easy task, the easiest one to be clear). If there is enough support for a rewrite I could create a sub-page within my user space that anyone can edit, or we create a ] (I'm missing the correct prefix to prevent it to be in mainspace but someone can fix that), and link it from this talkpage ''and'' the article. My 2 <s>cents</s> $ . ] (]) 18:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I would suggest an extreme application of ] principles. Before writing anything, shortlist the references to use, excluding ''all'' news media, and most certainly the blogs, tabloids, and gossip shows that should never have been used in the first place. Stick to law reviews and other best-quality ]. It will be a much shorter article, but much less contentious. ] <small>]</small> 20:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That would be a good start IMO.] (]) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* Absolutely, I think this is the only way to restore sanity to this article. However MLauba's "Followed by a controversy and a media section, where the issues and the viewpoints can be explained." needs to contain the qualifier "brief" as well. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">].</sub> 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::We'll figure that out when we're there, I'd say. ;) ] (]) 22:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*After all editors (so far) are in favor of going forward with the proposed rewrite, I've made the bold move and added a subpage to my user space as I mentioned above. Again, everyone please feel free to add or even remove this page to a potential better place at any time. You can find the page ].] (]) 23:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Will that not lead to attribution issues when the amended content is added to the article? If 10 people work on your user subpage and then the text is pasted in then it will look like one edit. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">].</sub> 23:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Good question which I addressed in part further above. To give you a more comprehensive answer: the way I've set it up now would mean that the Article in my user space won't be deleted after implied to the existing main. But I'm sure there are better solutions, I just didn't see that kind of problem before so either I figure it out by myself or, taking the easy way out, for sure there will be an editor around who knows how to manage this so no edit history is getting lost.] (]) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::To be clear, if others start editing the draft, the correct way is simply to ask any admin to move it on top of the existing article and perform a history merge, an operation so trivial even someone as dense as me can perform :) ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 23:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"''...as dense as me...". You're a funny fellow and I like you more and more and could fall in love with you if you just were of the opposite sex. XD ] (]) 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::TMCK is an admin and can history merge. Not an issue at all. ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 23:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Whoops, no, but once the draft is ready, any admin can move it over the article and perform the histmerge :) ] ''<sup>'''(''']''')'''</sup>'' 23:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Woops indeed, although sometimes, but only sometimes I wish I'd be one :). But as you, MLauba, said, the "problem" can be solved and therefore there is none.] (]) 23:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::<small>PS: Being or becoming an admin would just take too much time as I would spend it mostly by blocking vandals in a "non-forgiving way" and rarely in an effective manner as I've seen you doing. Besides, I have some nasty fellows eating up my brain and have to learn things newly on a daily bases to keep up with them :) Cheers, ] (]) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::::Never having worked on a full rewrite before, a couple of quick procedural questions: |
|
|
:::::*Is there a template that we can add to the main article to warn editors that a rewrite is in progress? |
|
|
:::::*Is it best to discuss details of the rewrite on this talk page or on the talk page of ]? |
|
|
:::::Thanks. ] (]) 09:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::To my knowledge there is no pre-fabricated-template for this but I'll apply a simple self-made template shortly at the article. Maybe someone with more time can make it more appealing. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Details about the rewrite should be discussed at the sub-page meanwhile general issues might fit better on this talkpage considering new and non regular editors to this page which we don't won't to confuse with where they "have to place their thoughts and comments".] (]) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*About the draft: |
|
|
:Please take a look at the new ] and the ] and voice your opinion. Thanks, ] (]) 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Suggestion for new structure == |
|
|
|
|
|
As mentioned above, I'm keen that we start from a clear structure so that we avoid a lot of the duplication that exists in the current article. My suggestion for sections and subsections is as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Lead section''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
*'''Meredith Kercher''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
*'''Events surrounding the murder''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
*'''Police investigation''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
*'''Evidence''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
*'''Defendants''' |
|
|
:*'''Rudy Guede''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Amanda Knox''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Raffaele Sollecito''' |
|
|
::Brief biography. Well-sourced material only. Not a discussion of the evidence and trial. Not a discussion of whether he is guilty.] |
|
|
*'''Rudy Guédé trial and appeal''' |
|
|
**'''Fast track trial''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Appeal''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Subsequent events''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
*'''Knox and Sollecito trial and appeals''' |
|
|
**'''Committal hearings''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Judges' report''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Filing of appeals''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
*'''Controversial aspects of the case''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
:*'''Claims of police mistreatment''' |
|
|
:*'''The double DNA knife''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''DNA disputes about bra clasp''' |
|
|
:*'''Claim of bleaching of the crime scene''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Issues of pretrial publicity''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Giuliano Mignini and his portrayal by the US media''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
*'''Support for Knox''' |
|
|
: |
|
|
:*'''Knox's family's PR campaign''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Senator Maria Cantwell's accusations of anti-Americanism''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
:*'''Friends of Amanda''' |
|
|
:: |
|
|
*'''Civil actions''' |
|
|
**'''Lawsuit filed by Kercher's family''' |
|
|
**'''Patrick Lumumba's lawsuit against Knox''' |
|
|
**'''Lawsuit filed by Amanda Knox''' |
|
|
*'''Books and documentaries''' |
|
|
:[Portrayals in books and TV documentaries |
|
|
*'''References''' |
|
|
|
|
|
I would anticipate that some of these "sections" might end up as just paragraphs, so we could end up removing some of the headings when we have written the text. |
|
|
|
|
|
What do others think about my suggested structuring? ] (]) 09:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It is definitely a start, but imho still way too long. But as you have suggested above yourself, some subsections might just get integrated in the main sections. Never the less, I would ask anyone participating in (re)writting any of the sections, to stay as brief and neutral/objective as possible.<br /> |
|
|
Always ask/tell yourself: |
|
|
:* Is this particular information needed? And if yes, does it necessarily provoke a counter response, which needs to be included than as well? |
|
|
:* Always ask the "So what?" question. |
|
|
:* With any inclution of information: Would you expect this bit of information to be found in an encyclopedia or rather in a blogg/discussion/entertainment TV show/book. Only include it, if you are certain it needs to be in an encyclopedia. If in doubt, leave it out. |
|
|
:* If one sentence does the trick, do not write a second one. |
|
|
:* No unsourced claims! (no hearsay) |
|
|
:* Only use reliable, well regarded secondary sources. (No bloggs, small town newspapers, entertainment books etc.) |
|
|
:* Keep emotions and your opinions out of it, no matter what you think or believe. |
|
|
:* Report what happened, not what might have happened or you think has happened. |
|
|
:* Don't jump to conclusions. |
|
|
:* No hinting! |
|
|
:* And remember, this is an encyclopedia article, not the place to advocate for either of the controversial sides.<br /> |
|
|
:] (]) 16:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Guede speaks== |
|
::Akuram, with regard to the length, I see what you mean. But I feel that, even if we just wrote one sentence under each of the headings, then removed most of the headings, even that would probably be an improvement on what we've got today. I agree with the points you make...and I'll try very hard not to write a second sentence, where one would do!! ] (]) 19:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
. He claims that Knox was present at the murder. Probably should be included in this article. ] (]) 23:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's already noted that he initially denied she was there (on the police tape) then changed his story on that point. ] (]) 00:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Generally this sounds good. I'm not to sure about the "Controversial Aspects" section. This sounds like a "criticism" section, which is kind of discouraged, so I wonder if the controversial aspects shouldn't be merged in the respective paragraphs (evidence and media). As for the length/detail argument - I'm not opposed to detail as such, where it makes sense. The main focus should be to make this article readable for a normal person. ] (]) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== links to original case files and documents] (]) 00:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC) == |
|
:::Yes, I'm also in two minds about the controversies but decided it was the least bad option. Take the "double DNA knife" for example. This is likely to be first mentioned in the section about the evidence that the police collected. If we add the "controversy" to that section, it would risk encouraging a debate about every piece of evidence and I was trying to avoid that. I don't want to follow every fact with things like "but the defence claimed that this evidence had been contaminated, although the trial judges accepted its validity, but this is being challenged in appeal...". Ideally we'd cover controversies when they occurred but, again taking the knife, it was challenged at the trial but has also been discussed by DNA experts not directly connected with the case (eg ''New Scientist'') and I think this is notable enough to mention. So I'm not sure there is a single place where we can discuss the controversy, unless we artificially create one with a "controversies" section. I would also say that there '''should''' be a difference between controversies and criticisms (though maybe the present article has blurred the two). A controversy is, of its nature, two sided, and I would anticipate the controversies section putting both sides of the argument in a balanced way. ] (]) 08:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi fellow Wikipedians, |
|
:::In the spirit of "Boldness", I have added my proposed structure to the working page. I appreciate that it does not have any consensus at present, but it can be edited, hacked around or indeed be replaced by something quite different, more easily on that page, than in the list format above. To be clear, I am not trying to prevent further discussion of it: quite the reverse—I hope that making it editable will facilitate discussion and improvement of the structure. ] (]) 09:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have posted online 1000s of documents related to the murder case including police investigation reports, prosecutor files, defense team reports, courtroom testimony, court motivation reports, etc. The website is http:/www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net. Is it okay to put links to some of the original case files? |
|
::::You can be as bold as you'd like at that page. I (as the "owner" of the page) and nobody else can and should say different . BRD applies to that page as much as any other basic talkpage guideline. I should clarify that, although the page is in my userspace, It can and should be handled just like being in neutral space and I do not and will not hold any kind of ownership now or at any point in the future.] (]) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are also a few minor mistakes in the otherwise good article (as one example: Meredith didn't have seven knife wounds; she suffered two major knife wounds and 10 minor ones and at least 39 distinct bruises.) I can provide links to the original autopsy report and a few of the follow-up consultant reports. Any report, presentation, photo or video the website has been censored out of respect for the Kercher family. |
|
:::::Umh. I've tried to add a template which looks fine ] but can't get it work at the mainpage. Don't have time to figure it out now but either someone will or I will at some point. I had some different template style in mind anyways.] (]) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I've taken up on the offer and inserted the biographies into the new structure. Mostly copy&paste, with most of the trivia removed. Feel free to revert and improve as you like ] (]) 23:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
*About the draft: |
|
|
:Please take a look at the new ] and the ] and voice your opinion. Thanks, ] (]) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if linking to 'original' case documents is acceptable in this particular case. |
|
== Amanda Knox ready for separate article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your efforts! Marcello |
|
Should Misplaced Pages not have gossip type subjects? If so, Amanda Knox and many murder articles should be deleted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Murder of Meredith Kercher edit warring == |
|
If Misplaced Pages can have articles on gossip type subjects as long as they are notable by Misplaced Pages definitions, then Amanda Knox might qualify for a separate article. In part, she is developing a biography not directly related to the murder. She is charged with slander. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/01/italy.knox.hearing/index.html?hpt=T3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] ] |
|
I do not have a strong opinion either way ] (]) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
:A widely reported murder case is hardly "gossip". And no, she is charged with murder and the slander charge is just a side issue.] (]) 20:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::'''Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Revision history''' |
|
::I believe Amanda Knox should have her own article per notablitiy of her own. Oprah Winfrey visits by family etc etc..--] (]) 21:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*2021-08-14T16:28:22 '''Binksternet''' talk contribs 2,981 bytes −1,854 →edit warring: rv... that's not for the article talk page undothank Tag: Manual revert |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*2021-08-14T16:25:16 '''0mtwb9gd5wx''' talk contribs 4,835 bytes +1,854 →Murder of Meredith Kercher edit warring: User:Lard Almighty User:Binksternet undo Tag: Reverted |
|
:::We where there before. She is (like all the others evolved in this case) notable for ] and this didn't change and policy trumps opinions of editors.] (]) 22:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
::::Then why start a discussion at all. ] is somewhat questionable in this particulat case concerning Amanda. Her families participation on Oprah. and the extremely high coverage on amanda as a person in comparison to the case itself and the other suspects makes her notable beyond ].--] (]) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
:::::: You are correct in noting "extremely high coverage" confers notability beyond ]. The individual notability of Knox was clear when the Italian television poll listed Amanda Knox as a bigger personality than ] (in June 2009, NYTimes.com: ). Thus we have bio articles, such as ] acquitted of murder. -] (]) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::'''User talk:0mtwb9gd5wx''' |
|
:::::So what is the "other" event she's notable for and not attached to the event already described here? Don't tell me it's about her "''parents''" appearance on Oprah... ] (]) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Well, arguably the treatment of Amanda Knox is more notable than the circumstances of her supposed involvement in the murder of Kutcher. Knox may perhaps not be notable in of herself, the circumstances surrounding her certainly are. ] (]) 13:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Had there been no murder, she'd still be an unknown university student, not unlike any other. I think that TMC-k is right, here: Amanda does not qualify to have her own article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml"> ''']'''</span> (]) 14:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I agree with Salvio and TMC-k. Surely all the notable circumstances surrounding Knox are related to the murder case and therefore best covered in the main article. ] (]) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Yes, agree with MCK and others. Knox is notable for her conviction for the ] and nothing else. Also, wanted to add that I saw this interview with the parents: .]] 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
* At this point, the media coverage about Amanda Knox has surpassed ], due to multi-year events: |
|
|
:# 3-6 November 2007: Investigation & arrest after the murder. |
|
|
:# 12 June 2009: Amanda Knox testified in Perugia, that she was pressured/hit and never heard Kercher scream. |
|
|
:# 16 December 2009: ] states Amanda Knox is innocent and says to boycott Italy. |
|
|
:# January 2010: Amanda Knox is charged with defamation of Perugia police. |
|
|
:# 7 June 2010: Amanda Knox starts defamation trial. |
|
|
: When the media covered Knox on trial for defamation of the Perugia police, rather than any action involving Kercher, then clearly, WP:ONEEVENT no longer applied. It is a spurious argument to claim there would be no notability if "there had been no murder", as if saying a serial killer would be non-notable if the first murder didn't happen. A notable event cannot be "undone" to make a notable person non-notable. So, yes, Amanda Knox is notable for multiple events receiving broad, persistent coverage, and qualifies for a separate article as a "notable person" beyond one event (with notability beyond ]). -] (]) 06:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's ] by edit warring, as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-npov4 --> '''User:Binksternet''' |
|
Please note that Wikid77 has requested unprotection of ] to allow ] to be moved into mainspace. ] (]) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
: In general, we can discuss if a separate article is needed - ] may or may not apply. For me the question is: ''If we had this article, what would be in it '''beyond''' the things covered in the current article?'' The ] draft doesn't convince me of that need, though. Frankly this looks more like a different viewpoint to me; and somehow I feel that it'd just spread out the POV discussion in more places. I'd rather see the current article resolved before creating more pages around it. My 2 cents. ] (]) 12:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::'''User talk:Binksterne''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''0mtwb9gd5wx''', the ] is on you to gather consensus for your additions by starting a talk page discussion. You can't just keep adding your preferred version after others have removed it, no matter how many warnings you deliver to the people opposing you. When there is a dispute about article content, the disputed material stays out until consensus is clear to put it in. Your next move is to argue your case on the talk page. '''Binksternet''' (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
::Previously there was an attempt to create a separate article about the trial of Knox and Sollecito. Some people felt it was a "POV fork", whilst others pointed out the obvious overlaps with the main article and extolled the merits of trying to keep consensus discussions about a controversial topic confined to one place. The outcome was a deletion and a merge of material back into the main article. I fear that a separate Amanda Knox article is likely to take a similar course. It could encourage some people to try to insert POV material and avoid the scrutiny being applied to the main article; it would certainly make it more difficult to keep discussion focused in one place; and there would be a lot of overlap with the main murder article. I also think the argument that Knox is notable for more than one event is pretty weak. All the "events" that Wikid77 has listed are related to the murder and the ensuing judicial processes. All are covered in the main murder article (and belong there), except perhaps the bit about Donald Trump. ] (]) 13:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
* Individual notability comes from multiple separate events covered by major sources (]). If the Kercher murder had occurred in ], and then years later, Knox had been last seen with a female prisoner found strangled in Peru, that would clearly be beyond 1 event: 2 ] crimes (a murder, then a manslaughter). Instead, Knox is arrested for the first murder, then years later accuses the Perugia police of abuse: treated as 2 felony crimes (a murder, then defamation of police). Involvement in 2 widely reported felony crimes, years apart, is a case when ] no longer applies. The chain of connection is broken when the 2nd event is not a likely outcome of the first (instead, a choice was made): when the Perugia court declared a 2nd trial for defamation, they too were acknowledging there was a 2nd event, separate from the first trial. Ignoring either felony charge is not acceptable, just as ignoring either death, in Aruba or in Peru, cannot be used to claim if the first event had not occurred, a person would be just another student. Knox has notability from coverage of separate events, years apart. WP cannot delete the article of "Charles Darwin" by claiming a need to combine all discussions of Evolution, nor can WP delete "Earth" as a POV fork of "Flat Earth". For those reasons, a separate bio article is based on notability, not on content debates. -] (]) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::{{u|Lard Almighty}}{{u|Binksternet}} , I have not added my preferred version, I corrected deficiencies, and added improvements based on similar articles. The complaints you made were you made were implemented, yet {{u|Lard Almighty}}{{u|Binksternet}} still deleted a string of all my edits with '''etc''' as your only reason. Why dont you complain about each delete separately ? ] (]) 23:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
::Agree with Averell and Bluewave. Amanda Knox is notable for being convicted for the murder of her roommate. She has not done anything else in her life that is notable. Everything about her in the news is related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. If Meredith had not been murdered, then Amanda Knox wouldn't be in the news. Bluewave makes a good point about the a separate article being used for POV, editing problems, etc., not to mention that everything about her is related to this article.]] 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I also think that Wikid77 is stretching credulity a bit with the claim that Knox made her allegations about the police "years later". The murder happened on 1 Nov 2007; the alleged police brutality was on the night of 5/6 Nov 2007 when she was being questioned about the murder. I don't know when Knox first mentioned it, but probably fairly soon after. All the elapsed time is really that taken by the judicial proceedings. ] (]) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::Per ], you can make a case for your changes right here. You can talk about each of your changes separately if you wish. ] (]) 00:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
:::I also think that Wikid77 is stretching credulity a bit with the claim that Knox made her allegations about the police "years later". The murder happened on 1 Nov 2007; the alleged police brutality was on the night of 5/6 Nov 2007 when she was being questioned about the murder. I don't know when Knox first mentioned it, but probably fairly soon after. All the elapsed time is really that taken by the judicial proceedings. ] (]) 17:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::: ]: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" |
|
|
::: <nowiki>]</nowiki> what is the complaint {{ping|Lard Almighty}}{{ping|Binksternet}} ? ] (]) 01:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The nearby link to '']'' is the better target for the reader. It's more relevant to this bio. ] (]) 01:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: If a separate article ''is'' to be created - which is unlikely - it certainly won't be anything like the one in Wikid's userspace, which doesn't even mention Knox's main claim to notability - being found guilty of a murder. If you wanted an article to be deleted at AfD, leaving that out is certainly the way to do it. Wikid's draft basically says |
|
|
|
|
|
::*"Amanda Knox is an American college student, being held in custody in Italy on multiple charges. ''(trivia snipped)'' In June 2009, an Italian television poll listed Amanda Knox as a bigger personality than Carla Bruni, due to all her court hearings. In November 2007, she had been arrested as a suspect in the death of her roommate. (She was) then charged in October 2008 with slander against her former boss, and in January 2010 charged with defamation against the local Perugia police. (''trivia snipped'')" |
|
|
|
|
|
:: What's notable there? Answer: nothing. All her possible notability rests on the murder case. Thus, the content belongs there (where it already is). This carries previous consensus; traditionally at AfD those only notable for one event are almost exclusively redirected to the article about the event itself. ] ] 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Suspect arrests == |
|
::: Another Knox supporter bites the dust. Who will be the last one standing? |
|
|
|
Can somebody add a paragraph about the arrests of the suspects? It would be a great addition just after the "Discovery of the body" section. ] (]) 17:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
:::http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2012059797_commission_blasts_king_county.html |
|
|
::: ] (]) 21:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
Oops. Please disregard my previous post. The info is already in the article. Sorry. ] (]) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Patrick Lumumba" redirects here == |
|
::::Black Kite has pointed out the lack of content in the current version of Wikid's draft article. However, I would be even more concerned if it turned back into . ] (]) 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about we get rid of the redirect link here? He is a minor character in the whole story. And having a reference to him at the top - even as a redirect notice - provides some level of bias to the article. On the other hand the other Lumumba, the congolese politician, is a prominent character and there's no doubt which of the two bearing this surname is notable in Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::: At that time (and to some extent now) it was not an article about Amanda Knox so much as Wikid77's preferred version of this article. <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">].</sub> 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:A bit late to the party, but the politician is actually called ], and generic ] redirects to the politician. ] (]) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::: *stares in amazement* That version would last about five seconds (although I suppose we could keep it as an illustration at ]). Please tell me that the picture is a joke, btw ] ] 22:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) |
|
I have posted online 1000s of documents related to the murder case including police investigation reports, prosecutor files, defense team reports, courtroom testimony, court motivation reports, etc. The website is http:/www.themurderofmeredithkercher.net. Is it okay to put links to some of the original case files?
There are also a few minor mistakes in the otherwise good article (as one example: Meredith didn't have seven knife wounds; she suffered two major knife wounds and 10 minor ones and at least 39 distinct bruises.) I can provide links to the original autopsy report and a few of the follow-up consultant reports. Any report, presentation, photo or video the website has been censored out of respect for the Kercher family.
I'm not sure if linking to 'original' case documents is acceptable in this particular case.
Can somebody add a paragraph about the arrests of the suspects? It would be a great addition just after the "Discovery of the body" section. 199.102.241.68 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Oops. Please disregard my previous post. The info is already in the article. Sorry. 199.102.241.68 (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
What about we get rid of the redirect link here? He is a minor character in the whole story. And having a reference to him at the top - even as a redirect notice - provides some level of bias to the article. On the other hand the other Lumumba, the congolese politician, is a prominent character and there's no doubt which of the two bearing this surname is notable in Misplaced Pages. --2001:B07:AE5:D54B:A184:822D:FEF3:4AA8 (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
