Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Murder of Meredith Kercher
Status	Closed
Request date	28 July 2011
Requesting party	brmull
Parties involved	LedRush; CodyJoeBibby; Berean_Hunter
Mediator(s)	Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment	Closing, encouraging discussion to continue on talk page.

Murder of Meredith Kercher

The list of the users involved. For example:

• User:LedRush
• User:CodyJoeBibby
• User:Berean_Hunter
• User:brmull

Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:

• Brmull (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I consider this disruptive action and I do not accept mediation.LedRush (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Brmull was recently temporarily barred for edit-warring on this article and in my opinion is using the mediation process as a way to continue the conflict with other editors. He stated on his talk page that he considers his editing ban as a badge of honour. Given that Knox and Sollecitos' appeals will be complete in a matter of 6 weeks or so it seems prudent to leave the article pretty much as-is until that process is done. I too consider the mediation process to be vexatious in this case and don't accept it. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:

The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions,^{[1][dead link]} coverage in the news media^{[2][page needed][3]} and the conduct of the police investigation^[4][5] and prosecutor.^[5]

The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."

Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. But I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page.

I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:

The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States,^[6] and aspects of the case are controversial.^[5]

I'm willing to work with the other editors, but they insist that nothing be changed.

We just talk past each other. I make a change and I get reverted. I ask for comment and I get vague feedback. I try to decipher the objection on my own, and make a different change, but get the same result.

• Sure, I'm free at the moment, and this has been sitting here for a while, so I'll take it. I'd like opening statements from each parties below. Keep your comments to max 500 words, and summarise the issues you see here, or at least your viewpoint and why you have that viewpoint, or feel it is correct. Once this has been done, we will proceed from there. Sounds good? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I've read over the discussions and am ready to make comment. Having read the lead, I see a few glaring issues 1) "received much media attention". How much is much? It's subjective, not objective. An alternative may be "Received significant media attention" or even "received coverage by the media in (countries)". References are not often used in leads of articles, at least not according to the guidelines I know. Per WP:LEAD, if content in the lead section is not in the body of an article, it shouldn't be in th lead. If it is in the body and is unreferenced, then it should be referenced in the body. If its in the body and referenced, then it doesn't need referencing again in the lead. "Widely described as controversial". Widely described by who? If source A, B, and C called it controversial, say A, B, and C reported it to be controversial in the body. Adding A, B and C together and assuming D is correct is synthesis. The viewpoint on controversy should be balanced with alternative viewpoints as presented in reliable sources, which is not currently present in either the article or lead. Presenting articles from a neutral point of view, fairly and without bias to a certain viewpoint is a non-negotiable founding policy and principle of the Wikipedia project, and the Wikimedia Foundation. Additionally, a localised consensus does not override a global consensus unless in extraordinary circumstances. This global consensus is documented in Wikipedia policies. As I think this is a case that can be resolved by collaboration, I have pasted onto the talk page a format I have used in past mediations, in order to encourage consensus building. The terms for using this format is simple, but in summary, don't edit each other's sections, use here to discuss sections and work on a compromise. I'd ask all of you to keep an open mind and approach mediation in good faith. Put behind you the discussions you have had in the past in regards to this, and let's work on moving forward. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @Glrx, from a procedural point of view, the Mediation Cabal is not under the same restrictions for accepting cases as the Mediation Committee, that is, not all parties have to agree to mediation for it to proceed. Of course, mediation is much more successful if all parties participate, but part of me hopes just by plowing on and suggesting a reasonable compromise, that the parties that disagreed will reconsider.
• @LedRush, you said that "All editors agreed that the case was highly controversial". That's the issue. The article at present reflects the opinion of editors more than it reflects the opinion of sources. Let me provide some examples, but also an alternative.
• "The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States" - How much is "much"? It seems to me to be a personal assessment made by editors. Better to say "The case has received international coverage in the media". That's a straight fact. It's objective, not subjective.
• "It has been widely described as controversial" - How widely? Described by who? Subjective again. If the media has described the case as controversial, state just that. Try this as an alternative.

Wording 1

• Play around with aspects of the last sentence, but this might get you all on the right track. Remember, if a reasonable amount of coverage in sources is of the viewpoint that these concerns (conviction validity, conduct of prosecution) state the opposite (i.e., that they acted correctly, convictions were valid) then this needs to be included, though no sources have been presented as of yet to that effect. If it's only one or two sources, then I would question its inclusion. We must give appropriate weight to sources, but if there is a fringe view then it most likely should not be included. I'd have to see the sources to present an alternative. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @LedRush, basically because if RSes state X is true, it is better to say RSes state X is true, instead of stating X. For example, if reliable sources state the case is controversial, state that RSes call it controversial. It's all about staying objective. The lead is designed to be an intro, the details can be expanded in the actual body of the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @LedRush, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Avoiding_constant_disputes. Compromise (as I've said before) is sometimes required. Of course we should describe accurately what the reliable sources said. RSes might have called the case controversial, but in particular the validity of convictions and conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor are the controversial aspects that have been discussed, and this is the reason for my wording. I left out the media attention bit as it seemed a bit redundant to the first sentence. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#A_simple_formulation. Reliable sources may state that something is controversial, but in general practice I find it is better in situations like this to state these reliable sources describe it as controversial, as opposed to saying straight out that it is controversial (even if it is). Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @LedRush, please excuse my above comment if it seemed antagonistic, it was my intention to clarify my initial reasons, and nothing more. If the case has universally been described as controversial in reliable sources, then this can be added but needs to be qualified. We need to look at the big picture here. It's the lead of the article, and smaller details can be clarified in the body. If RSes almost universally describe the case as controversial, this may be an alternative, however "controversial" is still a little bit vague but can be clarified in the body.

Wording 2

This could work a little bit better. Clarifying who raised the concerns or use a different wording, such as I've mentioned above might work. Let's discuss it and play around with it until we reach something that we can all work with. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any progress here? Still awaiting feedback in regards to my above proposal. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 20:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to close this one, but I encourage all parties to discuss the issues in this case, and the alternatives I have provided, on the talk page, and in good faith. I will keep an eye on the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the name of this project page. The victim is Meredith Kercher. I'd do the move, but it may mess some other things up. Glrx (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glrx (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From a purely procedural standpoint, why is this mediation proceeding? By their "Acceptance of Mediation" comments, LedRush and CodyJoeBibby have rejected mediation. Glrx (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user wants to change the article based on a strong POV that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and the case is uncontroversial. The editors on the talk page have listened to his proposals in good faith, but they merely lack RSs (and he mistakes what the RSs actually say). In the instant case, he wants to change language in the lede which was the result of much negotiation. All editors agreed that the case was highly controversial, but the specific aspects required more sourcing. The reason not every statement has a source in the lede is because there are plenty of sources in the article to back up the statements. Please see the following comments from and links from the talk page:

"This discussion (and one below it) (archived discussion) have about 15 sources for calling the case controversial. This has been gone over so many times I can't believe we still need this conversation. Though we don't need to per WP policy, should we just take 3-5 sources and jam them after the word controversy in the lede? It looks ugly, but it seems the only way to stop this silly argument from cropping up again.

More copied from stuff on this very page: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=amanda+knox+controversial+trials&cp=33&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=0n&aqi=q-n1&aql=&oq=%22Amanda+Knox%22+controversial+trial&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4b0b76f839a314b5&biw=1024&bih=531

More from above in the endless conversations about things long ago proven beyond any doubt: "This one explicitly describes the trial as controversial, and it seems like a fairly reliable source. If we can find some more, then I can add them in."

The filer of this simply cannot accept consensus that doesn't favor him, and he has garnered no support for his positions. I believe he should be blocked (yet again) from editing this article if he continues his disruptive actions.LedRush (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors at Salon.com calling the case controversial - http://www.salon.com/news/crime/?story=/mwt/feature/2011/08/03/amanda_knox_excerpt

A quick search in google books brings up these hits in books:

"the controversial prosecution, conviction and sentencing of her American roommate "

"student Amanda Knox for the murder of her British housemate, Meredith Kercher, has generated international controversy over Ms. Knox's guilty verdict"

"the controversial DNA evidence"LedRush (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick notes/responses. We have dozens of sources that call the case itself controversial. However, instead of saying that the case is controversial, as a compromised, we said it was described as controversial. Rather than just listing the 10-50 media outlets which have described the case as controversial (which seems crazy to me), I am fine with just saying the case is controversial. Also, the list of criticisms is not random, nor are the sources in the lead the only sources. We devote a lot of attention in the article talking about the validity of the convictions, the conduct of the prosecutor and the police and the media attention. Nothing in the lede we are discussing is not sourced in the article.

Also, this article is a ridiculously imperfect compromise of people coming from vastly different head spaces on the issue. We have come to these imperfect compromises over a very long and very contentious process. Of course we can make further improvements to the article, but seeing as the appeals is ongoing and a decision is expected in the early fall, many editors have suggested that dramatic changes be put on hold until such time.LedRush (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steven Zhang. 1. The language currently in the lede is not just the editors' opinion, as you suggest. It is clearly and unequivocably supported by dozens of reliable sources. 2. Your suggestion is largely ok, but we cannot state that merely "aspects" of the case are controversial when so many sources say that the case itself is controversial. It is misleading and dishonest, in my opinion.LedRush (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, it seems to soft sell the amount of media coverage in two ways. One, it is stated in the past tense despite the fact that the case still gets front page coverage on newspapers' websites. Two, it just says that the case received international coverage. There are books (like the one I mention above) that delve into the question why this case has received such intense coverage. It has been described as the case of the century (21st) and the case of the decade. Why should we soft sell this so much?[reply]

Also, as I've said above, the article itself dedicates much time and sources to describing the questions about the convictions, prosecutor/police conduct, etc.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) And seeing as we devote a whole section to the media attention (and criticism of it), why would would take that out of the lede?LedRush (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven. But you didn't do that. The RSs say that the case is controversial. You've decided to change what they say and say that RSs say aspects are controversial. Also, I think your premise is wrong. When RSs make statements of fact, we don't usually ascribe them. However, I've compromised before on this point, and would again, if we merely ascribed what they said accurately.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Steven, seeing as I have pointed to long discussions that ended in a compromise, and I have just explicitly said I would compromise, your pointing to the policies seems unnecessarily antagonistic and misguided. Furthermore, nothing in those policies seems to excuse the seemingly deliberate distortion of sources that you are advocating with your proposal.

We have many more sources that call the entire trial (or the case) controversial than call one aspect of it controversial. Furthermore, the existing language is more accurate as many sources point to issues with certain aspects of the case (not just calling it controversial).LedRush (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Brmull- your offering misstates the nature of the controversies (what is a media controversy?) and is generally non-responsive.

@ Steven - your language is not bad. I think that it loses the focus on the media attention in UK, Italy and US (where it still gets a ton of press, unlike in the rest of the world) and it loses the extent of the controversy. I prefer the current, highly negotiated, well sourced, and consensus language. However, yours isn't a bad per se, it's just inferior to the existing language. This is largely a useless exercise as we need to get the consensus of the editors on the other article. Seeing as they have already come to a different consensus and aren't involved here, what's the point.LedRush (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe the statement that's the subject of this request is factually accurate, I disagree with the statement's inclusion in the lead. To me, this is a rather clear NPOV issue. Reading an incomplete list of reasons that the case has been controversial is not essential to understanding the article's subject. Townlake (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate LedRush taking the time to explain his position. He is incorrect on a number of points:

• I never said the case is uncontroversial. My proposed solution as well as that of user Grebe39 on the talk page acknowledge that aspects of the case are controversial.
• I deny accusations that my edits lack RS. But the fact that my current proposal is reliably sourced is, I believe, beyond question.
• The current language is said to be the result of much negotiation, but if one looks at the archives to which Led Rush refers, there was no consensus reached. User Grebe39, for example, was a party to those discussions and continues to object.
• I'll let others decide whether an argument that no sources are needed because there are "plenty of sources" makes any sense. Wikipedia requires that any statement that is challenged must be backed up with a RS (verbatim if possible, since there is considerable abuse of the "substantively the same" judgment in this article)
• Putting numerous cites after "controversial" containing that word would not resolve the problem because when sources call the case controversial they are implicitly or explicitly referring to a specific aspect. Indeed user Lambanog on the NPOV Noticeboard made the point that competing opinions about a trial is not unusual.
• Here's the quote from the TIME article LedRush mentioned above:

Shouts of "Assassina Americana!" rang across the cobbled streets in the historic center of Perugia on Friday night, as journalists and citizens jostled to watch a midnight court session that completed the controversial murder trial of American college student Amanda Knox.

Notice it says "controversial [initial, 2009] murder trial of ... Knox". At best this is all the source substantiates.

• Obviously it's untrue that my positions have garnered no support. I named two supporters above. I refuse to be drawn into personal attacks. I was blocked once for edit warring due to frustration and misunderstanding of the rules. Brmull (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I try to look at this from the standpoint of someone reading the article 500 years from now. Was the case front-page news once, or every single day? Was it solely tabloid fodder? The word "much" or "significant" adds little information. "Covered around the world" at least is an objective fact.
• I'm unclear about "the viewpoint on controversy should be balanced with alternative viewpoints". Perhaps some more guidance is needed here. Brmull (talk) 06:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum with respect to LedRush's comments: I've tried to steer clear of areas that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the appeal, which I understand is tentatively expected by December 6. But then there will be a second appeal. This cannot be an excuse to freeze the article. Nor can the fact that that the editing history of this article has been extremely contentious. I personally favor deleting the article as not worth the trouble, but seeing as that's unlikely we need to keep working to make it factually accurate and more NPOV. Brmull (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me like LedRush doesn't distinguish between "the case" and "the initial trial of Amanda Knox." The Salon article explicitly refers to the latter when calling it controversial. It seems like Steven is going back and forth, first saying that "aspects of the case are controversial" and later saying "RSes have called the case controversial". To me the distinction is very clear: It would be like saying "The Tour de France is described as controversial" because some bikers have cheated. No source to my knowledge says that Guede was uninvolved. No source says Kercher was not murdered. No source says Knox didn't deserve to win a defamation judgement for an outrageous book about her supposed sexual exploits. Brmull (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My problem with your edit is that the media have raised concerns not just about the convictions of Knox and Sollecito, and the conduct of the police and the prosecutor. They have also raised concerns about the involvement of politicians (discussed extensively in the article) and alleged defamation (discussed extensively in the article). The media have also raised extensive concerns about other things, such as nationalism, the celebrity status of Knox, and the so-called Knox PR campaign, which do not appear in the article because the article is biased. Nationalism in particular is something that several editors have mentioned should be added to the paragraph we're discussing. The fact that Guede received a fairly light sentence has been extensively debated in the media. Even this Wikipedia article, and Jimmy Wales' intervention at the behest of Knox supporters, has received substantial attention in the media. Isn't that something that the reader should know upfront? If we don't include things like these we simply have the usual litany of arguments that every defence lawyer raises in every case. Brmull (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think LedRush may be away from Wikipedia. I hope we can resume this discussion when he returns.
• I really shouldn't be compromising with myself, but here is another proposal:

Wording 2B

Brmull (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the discussion page and got totally confused. Both this and the discussion page dont mention where new users can post comments so i will post mine here

1. I strongly feel that Wikpedia should not be used to report any controversies in media or otherwise. Thats not the purpose of this site and I strongly suggest removal of any information that will sensationalise this murder.

2. Sticking to the facts as they stand should be enough

0police (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]