Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher: Difference between revisions

Not being disruptive. You say he's an imposter (WP:BLP?) and I show you his credentials and that he's already offered to prove his background to those who need to see it. Do you really believe he didn't have the FBI career he claims? Here is a guy who has vastly more experience than the Italian investigators in the case (Italy doesn't have many murders) and he's calling for the criminal prosecution of the police on the case. This article is devoid of NPOV because all the reliable sources with a certain POV (by far the majority POV) been banned by a handful of editors who have a voting majority at this point in time.PhanuelB (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such is the extent to which the point has been laboured to death that the continuation of this argument is becoming quite ridiculous. Do you really believe he didn't have the FBI career he claims? — of course, because without a burden of proof people can claim all sorts of "qualifications" which may or may not exist. An autobiographical statement assuring readers of being able to provide credentials if called on to do so is a dead ringer for failing WP:RS. Who knows just who this figure really is? The single disruptive POV on this talk page does not originate from other editors. Please redact the last sentence of the above post, which is an unacceptable WP:CIVIL violation. SuperMarioMan 01:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the credentials (or lack of) of Mr Moore are something we don't need to get into too deeply. However, we would need some sort of independent Reliable Source before we can assume that he has any. Phanuel, you are currently giving me the impression that you are interested in complaining about the behaviour of other editors, but uninterested in doing anything constructive with regards to the article. Why don't you challenge the idea that this material does not pass WP:RS by posting at WP:RS/N or else drop it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this yet another attack on other editors' motives (actually two, if you count your ludicrous claim that I believe Moore is not a reliable source because I don't agree with him), exactly the same for which you were blocked only five days ago - but it's also a complete falsehood, given that a simple scan of this page and the archives will reveal the simple policy-based reasons which many editors have given for not including certain items (from both "POVs") in the article. PhanuelB, I would seriously suggest you start being constructive on this page. If you post any more notices that attack contributors rather than discuss content, I will be forced to go to WP:ANI and ask for a topic ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation regarding Steve Moore is disturbing. Are you stating that you will allow Steve Moore as a reliable source if his credentials are presented? If I present his credentials, I guarantee that you will find another reason to disallow his opinion. It's not his credentials that bother you, It's his message. It does not seem appropriate for you to suggest that Steve Moore does not exist. You have no proof of this. Why not stay neutral on the subject until you have facts to back up your assumptions? I have been silently following this discussion for quite some time now. This page is currently being controlled by a biased group. Your statements regarding Steve Moore certainly confirm this. You consider Barbie Nadeau a credible source but not Steve Moore? There is no excuse for this other that blatant bias. I would appreciate an answer to my question. If I have Steve Moore contact you to provide you with the necessary credentials, will you then consider him a reliable source? NathanWard1234 (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd point out that User:PhanuelB has been blocked for the 3rd time, for his continued claims of bias on this page. Since you have carried on his attacks (your posting contains at least three claims that other editors are biased) I suggest you redact them before you find yourself blocked as well. Why is it that editors on this page are capable of handling themselves within Wikipedia policy except those agitating for a certain POV? I will of course assume good faith that PhanuelB being blocked and you returning to comment are not linked. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of threatening to ban anyone that disagrees with you, why don't you answer my question? If I have Steve Moore contact you to provide you with the necessary credentials, will you then consider him a reliable source? This article in its current form is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. NathanWard1234 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2010 **(UTC)

• Equally, instead of attacking other editors here, why not read the rest of the talk page to learn why numerous editors do not think Moore's commentary is reliable? He may well be an expert on interrogation, but anyone who writes an article which treats rumour and opinion as fact (as per this) cannot be treated as a reliable source regardless of his expertise. He clearly has a POV to push (i.e. that Knox is not guilty). The article already notes that a number of people have this POV; but views this extreme violate WP:UNDUE as well as WP:POV. We are not here to judge whether the trial was conducted correctly; only to report the facts. The way to go forward is for you to explain why exactly you believe the article is "an embarrassment" together with links to how you believe the content violates Wikipedia policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain to me how you can consider Barbie Nadeau a credible source and not Steve Moore. Barbie wrote an extremely biased book filled with proven misinformation regarding this case. Steve Moore has no more of an agenda than Barbie Nadeau. If you are going to apply the standards that you suggest, then you must apply those standards to all sources. NathanWard1234 (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know whether Nadeau is a reliable source, because I haven't looked into it. The question was about whether Moore was reliable; when I looked at some of his writings, I (and others) came to the conclusion that his commentary was slanted enough not to be reliable. I have not been involved in the writing of the article, only as a neutral admin trying to keep order on this talkpage, which is quite difficult. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've had a look at this. Two contentious statements in the article were sourced only to Nadeau, which may be problematic because they weren't of the "Nadeau claimed..." form. I've re-sourced one of these with a definitely reliable source, and removed the other one (about Knox's PR firm only dealing with journalists who promised to give positive coverage) because I can't find any other sources for it. Nadeau is still used to source two other statements, but they are both non-controversial (" Interpol traced a computer which (Guede) used in Germany to access Facebook in order to reply to a message from a Daily Telegraph journalist." and "Knox was, at the time of Kercher's murder, a 20-year-old University of Washington language student from Seattle, Washington"). However, as regards Nadeau's reliability, I am slightly surprised that "pro-Knox" editor PhanuelB would have referenced their book so many times in their proposed re-write (see the collapsed section above) if they were unreliable? Black Kite (t) (c) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on Steve Moore because I've never read anything he's written about the case but, with regard to how we consider sources, the tests that I try to apply when adding material to the article are as follows:

• Firstly, has it been published in a reliable source? In the case of Nadeau, I think we are quoting stuff published in a book by a reputable publisher or in Newsweek magazine, so these would pass the test. In the discussion about Moore, it sounds like he has mainly contributed to blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. Has Moore actually been published by a reliable source?
• Secondly, consider the credibility of the writer with regard to what they are writing about. Nadeau is known to be a professional journalist, to have attended the trials in Perugia and is an Italian speaker. I would argue that this makes her a credible source for events in the courtroom, for example. If she made a judgement about forensic evidence, on the other hand, I think we would question whether it was appropriate to include in the article, because she is not an expert in that subject. From the earlier discussion, it sounds like Moore has claimed to be an expert, but has he established those credentials in a verifiable way?
• Thirdly, is the reliable source publishing fact or opinion? If, for example, the New York Times publishes an article in which someone expresses an opinion that the Earth is flat, we cannot cite that as evidence for terrestrial flatness. All we can reliably say is that a person has expressed the opinion. Encyclopedias are most concerned with facts rather than opinions.

So, has Steve Moore been published in a reliable source, has he verifiably established his credibility in his field and has he more on offer than just an opinion? Bluewave (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP writes:

"Phanuel, you are currently giving me the impression that you are interested in complaining about the behavior of other editors, but uninterested in doing anything constructive with regards to the article."

The collapsed criticism section above defines in significant detail what I believe belongs in the article. It is not soapboxing. It is all sourced deadnuts and no one has identified anything specific that isn't right. Little edits is not what this article needs. What we have here is a total breakdown of Wikipedia's system and the result is a page that blatantly violates WP:BLP against Amanda Knox. It's that bad. The writing style is painfully bad and the article is mired in irrelevant detail that carefully avoids the big picture about why the subject is notable. The problem is that so many reliable sources have condemned the tribunal and the article says nothing about it. Here is a particularly bad passage:

"A defense witness in the Knox and Sollecito trial said that Guede told him of having been caught by police with property stolen from the witness's office, but that he had purchased this property legitimately.[55] A bartender has also alleged that Guede entered his home uninvited and carrying a knife and the owner of a nursery school in Milan has claimed that Guede trespassed on her premises."

That passage is painfully bad. I am prohibited from commenting on why I think this passage was written in this way. I believe the evidence speaks for its self and the conclusions are obvious. The fact is that Guede did all sorts of things without accomplices in the weeks prior to the murder that were similar to what was found at the crime scene. As pointed out by numerous reliable sources banned from this article these arguments are central to why Amanda Knox is unlikely to have participated in the murder. PhanuelB (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what specifically do you think is bad about the passage you have quoted? --FormerIP (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please remember that Guede too is entitled to WP:BLP. You're very worried about BLP-vios regarding Amanda Knox — which is good! — and yet you keep violating that same policy when it comes to Mignini and Guede. Please, stop. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 14:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you have the problem completely back to front. You say "the article is mired in irrelevant detail that carefully avoids the big picture about why the subject is notable". Yet the previous version of the article did exactly that - it was mired in irrelevant detail about the minutiae of the trial, much of which had been chosen by editors to give the impression that Knox was innocent. The current version of the article does no such thing - it does not attempt to pass judgement on the correctness or otherwise of the verdict - i.e. it is NPOV - and our policies state very clearly that this is how it must stay. Any edit which attempts to use Wikipedia to espouse an opinion - whether on Knox's guilt or innocence or anything else - must not be allowed to stand. That's how Wikipedia works. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite has a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. When numerous reliable sources are saying that that the trial is a sham, that must be a part of the article. That is the sole reason that this whole story is notable BTW. In the right circumstances Wikipedia can indeed pass judgment on whether someone is guilty or not (in many murder cases, guilt is not in question.) This article should not advocate innocence or guilt but it should summarize in some detail what reliable sources say about the subject. In its current form this article advocates guilt because it carefully omits the discussion of innocence. The details of why these reliable sources argue for innocence cannot be selectively kept out of the article. The WP:BLP violation against Amanda Knox is that there is virtually no mention of the vast criticism that this was not a fair trial. The previous article was not well written either. Both efforts are a camel that resulted from a committee trying to design a horse. Both articles completely ignored the big picture issues. PhanuelB (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phanuel, the fact that numerous reliable sources are saying that the trial is a sham (or whatever exactly it is that they're saying) does not mean that the fact that the trial is a sham should be part of the article. It means, rather, that the fact that criticsms of the trial have been made should be included in the article. I'm sure you can understand this distinction, and you can see from the article that this has been done. On the general question of weight, consensus is against you (ie what we have is enough). If you have specific critisms of the article as it stands (eg "the source doesn't say what the article says it says", "that's a weasel word", "that's not an RS"), then make them and they can be discussed. But very broad criticisms don't seem to me to have much point to them. If you want a complete "pro-Knox" re-write, you're not going to get it. If you want to address flaws in the article, you're not going to get that either unless you specify what you think there are. --FormerIP (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those who oppose this article will get what arbitration eventually gives them. That will occurr at a time and a place of their choosing. I have looked very closely at the record for the banning of the two other pro innocence editors and I saw no valid reason for banning them. You can't fix a problem like this by banning those who have a POV that you oppose. PhanuelB (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to get on with the arbitration process then, instead of just making these vague threats of arbitration.  pablo 16:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly an administrator with a number of years experience has less understanding of how Wikipedia works than you. Sigh. This is an article about a murder, not an article about a trial. The murder is not notable purely because a lot of people have a lot of things to say about it; it was notable even before the trial started. Of course the controversy should be mentioned, and it is - there's a whole section about it. However, to skew the the article by attempting to cram it full of everything ever said by any commentator would be completely WP:UNDUE, as you've been told dozens of times now. Your inability to understand this very basic concept of Wikipedia is becoming tiresome, frankly. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact in this case an administrator "with years of experience" is wrong about Wikipedia's rules. This article is notable because of questions about whether a female college student from the US got a fair trial. The controversy over the fairness of the trial is notable, the murder is not. Murders happen every day. The concerns over WP:BLP against Amanda Knox are grave; the concerns about WP:BLP against Mignini and Guede are without merit. The effort is not to cram it full of what every commentator said. Some of the ones I cite have been broadcast on cable television channels that reach 200 million households in 200 countries and they have been choosen to comment by some of the most important news organizations in the world. The claim that reliable sources are being banned because they hold a specific POV is fully supported by the evidence and is legitimate.PhanuelB (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you believe that BLP issues only apply to Knox probably explains exactly why you shouldn't be attempting to influence this article. BLP applies to everyone. Moreover, this is merely another of your "I am right and everyone else is wrong" postings. You've had the issues explained to you enough times; now (a) start an arbitration case, or (b) make useful specific proposals, section by section, of what you believe should be altered in the article so that they can be discussed here. If you're not prepared to do either of those things, there appears to be no point in you merely repeating arguments that have been consistently rejected by other editors. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that there should be a whole new article - The Amanda Knox Trial. That article could go into depth about the trial itself. The murder may be notable by itself but the trial is very important and deserves to have it's own article. My thought about the murder is that the controversy surrounding the media betrayal and trial of Amanda Knox have had far more attention and interest than the murder alone.Jaberryhill (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been tried, and was merged back into this article as a WP:POVFORK. The deletion discussion is here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trial of Knox and Sollecito. Articles on Knox herself have met the same fate, the latest one being redirected here for the same reason (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Knox). Given the problems with certain viewpoints on this article (at least two editors have been topic-banned or blocked so far for disruption here), spreading the issue across more than one article would double the issues that editors trying to uphold WP:NPOV are having. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a decision was made in the past to merge a separate article about Knox & Sollecito into this one doesn’t mean that decision can’t be revisited if people think it is warranted. There have been some developments since then and the controversy continues to rage. If that wasn’t so, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. As has been said, this case is most notable for the international uproar and controversy it has created. The people raising serious questions about the validity and fairness of the trial are not limited to a “lunatic fringe”, but include many responsible and credible persons. People who turn to Wikipedia to learn what all the fuss is about deserve to be given an understanding of why so many people are crying foul. If a sufficient discussion of those reasons is too much for this article, then perhaps another article should be created. And I strongly disagree with those who want to discount the sources cited by PhanuelB; e.g. Steve Moore, CBS 48 Hours , etc. I think some people are looking at this the wrong way, i.e. using the wrong standard to judge whether these sources are “reliable”. If you are looking to quote a RS to judge whether the verdict was correct and who is really guilty, well then good luck trying to find an article or documentary done by GOD! I don’t think there is any source that everyone considers reliable for that purpose. But these sources are absolutely reliable if used for the purpose of documenting the controversy. Editors should not attempt to pursue an agenda to prove or disprove guilt or to pass judgment on the Italian judicial system; but the article is incomplete and inaccurate if it (or another related article) does not fully present the issues behind the debate. Kermugin (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there have been very little developments since then and probably won't be until proceedings start again. Also, you are missing the point a bit; we do not judge whether the verdict was correct. We report the verdict, and we point out that some people disagree with it. All that information is already in the article. We also do not report everyone's opinions on the issue. To take Steve Moore as an example; he may or may not be an expert on interrogation, but since he wasn't actually at the interrogation, and on the InjusticeInPerugia website he reports Knox's claims of being assaulted as fact (as well as other rumours), he clearly can't be considered reliable. As for the trial article; it would need to be written in userspace first, I think. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio: There is no WP:BLP violation against Mignini or Guede whatsoever. You are invited to show where you think there is one. Please take a look at the citations in the collapsed edit I made. There is significant information that is not displayed on the talk page but is displayed on a sandbox page.PhanuelB (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reference to your last comment on the subject of Guede, where you seem to be expressing only your own opinion and going directly against the findings of the court. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realiable sources say that the "findings of the court" are a sham. That is what is supposed to be in the article. Perhaps you could name something in the "Failure to Arrest Guede" section that is not fully sourced?PhanuelB (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Phanuel, you should think about whether it is time to stop flogging a dead horse. You'r not going to get anywhere or do anyone any good with your current strategy. Experienced editors are telling you you are breaching policies, which is something you ought to pay attention to or you may end up getting sanctioned. It think it would be better if, instead, you changed tactics. If any changes to the article are to be successfully made, this won't happen by you just trying to make your case that the prosecution was "a sham". You need to propose realistic changes to the article, one by one, stop commenting on other editors and focus on details and sources rather than just banging on about the terrible injustice of it all. You should also think about the difference between fact and opinion, which (IMO) is where your proposal above falls down most significantly. --FormerIP (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally more interested in listening and learning rather than arguing at the moment. I think I understand both sides fairly well. But I must say that I do find a good deal of what Phanuel says valuable and worth considering. The article does seem to lack a NPOV right now. At the same time I am not sure that it does enough to establish that its subject is notable enough to warrant a wiki article of its own. We should be more accommodating and less dismissive of some of the concerns that have been raised in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PietroLegno (talk �� contribs) 15:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an amateur translation and therefore probably not an RS: [1]. The original Italian is here: [2] --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Massei report is not a reliable source and that has nothing to do with the translation. Controversy surrounding the quality of the report is a subject of the article. PhanuelB (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. The report hardly seems to have been mentioned by the secondary sources (when it was published, I seem to remember The Times devoted about 3 column-inches to it on about page 53). However, coming, as I do, from a country where the internal workings of courts are not routinely available to the public, it is fascinating to see the detailed rationale of how the court reached its conclusions. I agree that it is of limited use to us, as it is an amateur translation of a primary source. Bluewave (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of the Massei report is a professional translation - it took 5 months ... "The 12 "unpaid volunteers" who translated the Massei report into English live on four different continents and include translators, lawyers, a medical doctor and a molecular biologist." (report from Seattle Post Intelligencer August 9th 2010). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.244.186 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Didn't mean to be at all disrespectful of the work that has gone into it. But I suspect it wouldn't pass our normal WP:RS standards, due to not having been published "officially" or by an organisation or website that has some equivalent of a board to give oversight. I could be wrong about this. In any case, it is a useful tool for anyone here who isn't able to read it in Italian. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FormerIP: So you're saying professional translators lawyers, doctors or scientists when they work "freelance" aren't operating in a professional capacity. (86.159.244.186)

FormerIP, the report did not come from the official judicial arm of Italy. It was comissioned by a third-party and biased web forum. Translation of language always includes interpretation. Therefore, it should not be considered for the same reasons you suggest any pro-Amanda content derived from "blogs" are not included as well. Again, this goes back to the entire arguement about being one-sided with the application of the rules of Wikipedia.

The comments about Steve Moore's articles are what I'm referring to here. JSL5871 (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, in the very first sentence of this section "probably not a RS". Whoever Steve Moore is, his reliability as a source is best discussed at RS/N  pablo 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor raised concerns about reliability, although I suspect the source is reliable I have re-sourced or re-written the two possibly contentious sections that were only sourced to Nadeau. If anyone can find other reliable sources to back up that;

• Knox's DNA was mixed in with the bloody footprints in Kercher's blood, or
• That Marriott would only deal with journalists that promised positive coverage

then feel free to change them back. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think fair enough on the DNA quote, but I think the claim about Marriot should go back in, since it is an observation reported by Nadeau (ie even if we found other sources for it, they would only be reporting what she has said in her book). It should be reworded with an attribution though, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, it'd be nice to find another source though; you'd have thought a journo somewhere would've mentioned it. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the mixed DNA/blood, the Massei report translation says "... Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own room leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda..." So it sounds like Nadeau has got this right. Bluewave (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well that looks like corroboration. On the general question of footprints, it is worth noting that the Massei report declines to reach a conclusion as to whose shoe made the print under Knox's body, leaving open the possibility that it may have been Guede's (there seems to have been some dispute in court as to whether is was a woman's shoe or a man's shoe) (see 343-344 of the Massei translation). As reflected in what you quote, Bluewave, the report also concludes that two bare footprints, one in Kercher's room and one just outside it, belonged to Knox (347-348). These prints are not currently mentioned in the article. This is significant, because the article currently states: "there was no forensic evidence, such as DNA, hair, fibre, blood or skin, directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom where Meredith Kercher was sexually assaulted and murdered", which would appear to be misleading - although footprints are not mentioned in the list, they are a type of forensic evidence. --FormerIP (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that part can be restored, then; it's probably worth still keeping the source I added in as well. I'm not sure how to quote from Massei - if someone wants to restore "footprints" with that reference that'd be good. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what is wrong with Nadeau's book as a source....other than that one editor has expressed the opinion that it is biased and (again in their opinion) that it contains misinformation. We don't usually dismiss a source based on one editor's opinion, or am I missing something? Bluewave (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On page 34 of the PMF translation of the Massei Report it states that a footprint in Knox's room (not Kercher's room) was compatible with Knox. The other prints deemed compatible with Amanda are in the corridor. The current article is not misleading when it states no forensic evidence places Knox in Kercher's room. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluewave: Given the amount of identifiable misreporting on the case, I would say that we should be wary of any information, particularly about evidence, that only appears in one source. Admittedly, this probably applies to other material that no-one has suggested removing and, admittedly, Nadeau is probably more reliable than many journalists, given that she has written a book on the case. But the info is corroborated now, so I think there is no issue as far as that goes. --FormerIP (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm much happier that we are suspicious of evidence that is only singly-sourced, rather than being suspicious of Nadeau for reasons that have not been made clear! Bluewave (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't that I was saying Nadeau was unreliable, only that I was a little unhappy that two quite contentious issues (the DNA in the footprint, and the claim that the PR team would only give briefings to journalists who'd write positively about Knox) were only sourced to Nadeau and I couldn't find any other source that didn't derive from Nadeau, especially as you'd have thought both issues would've been covered elsewhere. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay footwarrior, I stand corrected there, although what it does say is that Knox's print was found "in the corridor in front of the door to Meredith Kercher’s room, and was pointed towards the entrance", which is significant, no? --FormerIP (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would Steve Moore be considered reliable, then, if he wrote a book on this case as well? Barbie has made false claims in the past, including having access to 10,000s of pages of legal documents, which, when pressed, she has never verified. Making the assertion that someone is more reliable because she wrote a book (published by the company she is a journalist for) is not sound logic and goes to the very basis of what sources are allowed on this page and what are not. JSL5871 (talk) 00:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to link to any reliable source that shows Nadeau to be unreliable. Regardless, you will have noticed (or perhaps you didn't bother) that I have ensured that any contentious issue sourced only ro Nadeau is either backed up by a reliable source or removed. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JSL: Hypothetically, yes Steve Moore might be considered a reliable source if his essays had been published anywhere other than a personal website (although it should be added that the strength of his claims mean that they would need to appear in very strong sources). You should either substantiate (with an RS) or remove your accusation against Nadeau, per WP:BLP. --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned JSL and will remove this section unless they come up with any convincing evidence that Nadeau is unreliable. Despite the fact that nothing controversial is sourced to her ... Black Kite (t) (c) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe footnote # 16 is correct. In my reading of the Google translation of the Micheli report it does not sound like anyone bought an apartment for RG. Rather it appears that he was paying rent himself and that his landlady was asking him for proof of employment.

I suggest that the one paragraph containing footnote #16 be removed.

Before doing so, however, I want to offer the opportunity for someone to correct me--that is to show me where in the report it says that an apartment was purchased for him. Google translations can be hard to follow and I may have missed something. At the very least there may be confusion on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PietroLegno (talk • contribs) 15:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think it would be fine to remove this - it doesn't seem to me to be an important detail and I also couldn't find it confirmed in the source. It may be there, and if someone finds it then the information can easily be added back in. --FormerIP (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<BLP violation redacted>

Please also not that I had requested in the past that any sources from the Micheli report be translated. In an act of good faith I had offered to waive the requirement for items that were not in dispute.

This article does not reflect what reliable sources say about the case.PhanuelB (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment on your talkpage, Phanuel. --FormerIP (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite has redacted the statement above and made false allegations of WP:BLP violations. The statements are fully sourced. Please see that the text is restored.

From the CBS 48 Hours Documentary A Long Way from Home 4-Apr-08:

Peter Van Sant:"Ciolino, talking to the owner of the bar, learned that Rudy had even been banned from Merlin's because he tried to rob a bartender at knifepoint."

Paul Ciolino:"We know that Rudy has no visible means of support and is able to pay rent, go to clubs, and do all kinds of things,"^[1]

PVS:"Why would Rudy have targeted that house, of all places, to look for money? These are a bunch of college student,"

PC:"Rent is due at that time of the month. It was the 1st. And rent’s due. So everybody knows college students are gathering up the rent at that time," Ciolino theorizes.

PVS:"Police told Ciolino Meredith took out 250 euros the day she was murdered and the money is missing. Rudy’s fingerprints were found on her purse."

Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau:

"He[Rudy] lived on the periphery of the university scene in Perugia and could easily pass for a student. He was known to be a small-time drug dealer." P103

Bob Graham Express.UK 25-Aug-10

"It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing. But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer."^[2]

Nick Squires Telegraph.co.uk 5-Dec-09

"Guede was already well known to police by the time he killed Miss Kercher. As well as being a drug dealer with a criminal record for minor drugs offences"^[3]

Nick Pisa Mail Online 29-Oct-08

"He[Guede] was known to police after being stopped and searched several times and was known as a petty thief and small time drug dealer."^[4]

For convenience I have copied this text from my talk page.PhanuelB (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained on your talk why the original posting was a BLP violation. Do not restore the text. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC also felt free to call Guede a "small time drug dealer", [3]. Given that the BBC is normally considered a WP:RS, the redaction of your talk page comments seems rather out of line. --Footwarrior (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really the point. Phanuel's speculation about how this might be linked to the crime isn't sourced, and it's a strain on the environment here. A discussion based on looking at sources and arriving at consensus about article content would be fine, but it seems very diffcult to get Phanuel to engage in that sort of thing. --FormerIP (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Black Kite had another reason for removing another persons comments from this page, he shouldn't have claimed the reason was WP:BLP. --Footwarrior (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Phanuel's talkpage. Synthesis that Guede was paying for the apartment based on current drug-dealing activity, sourced only to reports that he may have been involved in such activity in the past, is clearly a BLP violation. You cannot speculate that a person is involved in criminal activity merely because they had done so in the past. This should be obvious. The subsiduary issue is that Phanuel is clearly trying to insinuate this in order to advance his hypothesis that Guede was the one that stole money from Kercher's purse, which again is synthesis. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with footwarrior Black Kite. You are getting a little bit out of line here. It really does appear that you have let your ongoing disputes with Phanuel get personal and this clouds your judgment. I have read the BLP material and I believe your interpretation is largely wrong. What Phanuel has in mind could be challengeable in a few instances, but on the whole it is well sourced and his suggestion that the article doesn't reflect what reputable sources have said about RG is accurate. I humbly suggest you try to work with Phanuel on appropriate language rather than reflexively redacting. Much of what he suggests is very well sourced and would improve the article. Our aim should be what a neutral, impeccably fair reporter or editor would say about RG. The standard here unfortunately seems to be to aim for something that would not be objectionable to RG's lawyer. PietroLegno (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "standard here", as everywhere else on Wikipedia, is not to speculate or synthesise, especially where living people are concerned.  pablo 19:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You too are missing the point. Whilst there are clearly sources that say Guede was previously involved in drugs, Phanuel is trying to synthesise the fact that the rent on his flat was paid for through such means. There are no reliable sources that say that. As Pablo says, if something cannot be sourced precisely to reliable sources, it doesn't get included. If that something is a negative commentary on a living person, it is a WP:BLP violation and it is removed. Also, I don't have "an ongoing dispute with PhanuelB". I am trying to administer this page to Wikipedia standards, and if PhanuelB cannot stick to our policies, then there will inevitably be times when I have to remove such violations. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what was written because you redacted it from the Talk Page. So I can't make an independent judgment. That is okay as that is your job if you feel it is right to do so. But another careful editor, footwarrior felt that it was not a BLP violation and he/she has some credibility with me too. If Phanuel really said that RG supported himself through drug dealing, I can understand your objection. The larger point, however, is that we shouldn't be trying to minimize RG's arrest (not conviction) record or the fact that he was unemployed and associated with the drug trade in the past. The article as now written does not seem neutral to me. Many of Phanuel's sources are to-the-point. If you are not primarily an editor then I would suggest that Phanuel post some suggested alternative language that contains well sourced information on RG while meeting your concerns. Please don't misunderstand; I fully support the spirit of WP:BLP. It is my view that there has been in the press way too much loose, uninformed, and damaging talk about this case already. I only wish major news outlets had adhered to WP: BLP during the pretrial and trial periods.PietroLegno (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I, and many others, have repeatedly asked Phanuel to do just that; however his responses have been to suggest either entire re-writes of the article or the addition of massive chunks of text (see the top of this page for an example) which are either dubiously sourced or tangental to the case (thus failing WP:UNDUE). If he did suggest small re-writes, one at a time, which could be discussed here, I am sure he would find the responses more to his liking. The other problem is that Phanuel is clearly trying to influence the article in only one direction (this was his first ever edit at Wikipedia), rather than attempt to make the article more NPOV. Hence the repeated requests to edit more collegially. In the end, it is up to him. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he does do just that. I think his points are worth exploring providing there is no undue synthesizing and providing there is some effort to accommodate other views. The section on RG is short. Maybe it would make sense for someone to take a stab at a rewrite that had some chance to be the basis of a consensus. PietroLegno (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro: You say above that "Much of what [PhanuelB] suggests is very well sourced and would improve the article". My particular difficulty with Phanuel's past behaviour (I appreciate that you have been here less time, and it is no bad thing for you to AGF) is that he never seems to "suggest" anything. He just comments on other editors, makes general statements about the whole thing being a sham or whatever, posts endless quotes when it is not clear what other editors are supposed to do with them, and fails to respond when asked to make specific comments or suggestions regarding the article. Basically, what ends up happening is most of the talkpage activity is spent on either trying to get sense out of him or else discussing him (which is what we are doing right now when we could otherwise be discussing how to improve the article).

There is a lot that could be improved about the article and there would definitely be merit to discussing what should and shouldn't be included in terms of the backgrounds and personal lives of the defendants. But I feel that it is just not possible at present because no discussion about anything can last a decent amount of time without it being dragged into a downward spiral by incessant unsourced speculation and off-topic ranting.

Don't know if you can see this or not, but I am at least glad to get it off my chest. --FormerIP (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Meredith and her friend parted ways "at 8:55 pm" is apparently not accurate and is in disagreement with Judge Micheli's report which indicates Sophie arrived at her home at 8:55 pm.

From the Meredith Kercher wikipedia article; "Events surrounding the murder On 1 November 2007, Kercher's two Italian flatmates were away for the night.[16] At 8:40 pm, a witness knocked on the door of Sollecito's flat and Knox answered.[25] Kercher spent the early evening with three friends.[26] At about 8:45 pm, she left with one of her friends. They parted company near the friend's flat at 8:55 pm.[27]: 24 Kercher then walked the remaining 500 yards (460 m) to her flat.[26]"

THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH IS SOPHIE PERTON'S NOV 1 2007 STATEMENT FROM JUDGE MICHELI'S REPORT: "Exit the house of A.[Amy Frost] and Via Roscetto: Here you were separated because Via del Lupo R, [what?] K.[Meredith Kercher ] and she had come down the hill at the bottom of Via Bontempi, reaching po is on the right, while M.[Meredith Kercher] had continued the journey along the Via Pinturicchio, then other walks down to Via della Pergola (at least, so the witness assumed, this being the usual route and shorter). The P.[Sophie Purton] was sure that I have checked the schedule in her return home, and it was 21:00 [9 pm]."

Sophie Perton (Meredith's friend that walked partway home with her)was guessing about what time she parted ways with Meredith. The following quote is from Judge Micheli"s report: "On 17 November, P. [Sophie Purton] made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition, confirming the initial statements without time to clarify where the four friends had begun to eat in the house of A. [ Amy Frost] and R.[Robyn Butterworth] (perhaps 18:00 [ 6 pm ] , or maybe first): instead correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55 [ 8:55 pm ]."

Based on Sophie's statement made to police investigators on Nov 17, 2007 Sophie arrived at her home around 8:55 pm so they did not part ways "at 8:55 pm". They parted ways slightly before 8:55 pm.

From the motivation report we know that the last call to Meredith's mother was placed from Meredith's UK phone at 8:56 pm (This call was interrupted in a matter of seconds and before data about the call could be recorded, so it's not known which cell tower the phone connected with or the length of the call). Considering Meredith is walking home on a cold dark night it's safe to assume that Meredith made this call after she arrived home. I am aware that I can not include my assumptions in the article but I think the interrupted phone call at 8:56 pm should be included in the article and allow the reader to make their own assumptions.

Also in Micheli's report Sophie stated it takes around 2 minutes to walk from her home to Meredith's apartment, however I calculated it would take about 4 minutes to walk (at a fast pace) 500 yards, so Meredith and Sophie must have parted ways about 8:54 pm or 8:52 pm respectively, assuming she called her mother from her apartment at 8:56 pm. However we must consider Sophie guessed at the time she arrived home based on her TV program coming on at 9 pm, a few minutes after she got home. She never said she looked at a clock, so the exact time they parted ways can not be determined, therefore it is not correct for the article to say they parted ways "at 8:55 pm". To say they parted ways before 8:55 pm would most likely be correct. To say Sophie did not know exactly what time they parted ways would be totally correct. I'm not sure how this discrepancy should be corrected but I think it should be corrected because it's not accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 02:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." (page 37 of the PMF translation). Since it could be off by a minute or two, inserting the word "about" before 8:55 PM is probably appropriate. If I remember correctly Sophie's home was only a few meters from the goodby spot. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed "8:55 pm" to "about 8:55 pm" to conform to the source. The Massei report indicates the 8:56 phone call never connected to the network, it was only recorded in the phone's memory. It could just be an indication that Meredith was in a bad spot for cell reception, such as the narrow lane where she said goodbye to Sophie. (Follow the "Goodbye spot with Sophie" link on the main page of the Perugia Shock blog if you are curious). If we mention the phone call in the article, we need to be careful about the wording. --Footwarrior (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Footwarrior from yoyohooyo: According to Google maps it's 34 meters from the corner where Meredith and Sophie parted ways to Sophie's home. There is another discrepancy. According to Google maps it's only ~200 meters (219 yards) from the house where they spent the evening, to the corner where they parted ways, and according to Google maps it would only require 2 minutes to walk the distance, not about ten minuted as stated in the Massei report, so if they left the friends home about 8:45 pm they would part ways about 8:47 pm. Either Google maps is not very accurate or Sophie's time and distance estimates are way off. If Google maps is correct then Sophie is saying it took abut ten minutes to walk 200 meters (219 yards), and two minutes to walk 500 yards. Again I don't know what should be done about the time and distance discrepancies. Maybe a note should be added to point out the times shown are only estimates and apparently are not very accurate. The only accurate time we have from 8:45 to 9 pm on Nov 1 2007 is the phone call to Meredith's mom at 8:56 pm (which I suspect was rounded off). So what do you do when your referenced documents do match up with reality? That is if Google maps is close to reality. Page text.[1]

This all sounds like it's getting into the realms of interpreting primary sources, and that's not part of our job description! Bluewave (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be possible to walk the distance in a fraction of the 10 minutes Sophie indicated, but we shouldn't assume Sophie is wrong. Sophie would know if they took their time or chatted for a while before Meredith headed home on her own. As for reference sources being wrong, that does happen. When it does, the best solution is to find a different source that is correct. --Footwarrior (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie did not say that she looked at a clock. She doesn't know exactly what time she got home. Information that is obviously incorrect should not be presented as fact. Sophie said they started walking home at 8:45 so they would have parted ways at 8:47 pm which is not about 8:55 pm. To support your argument you assumed conditions that Sophie did not say occurred. Sophie said they started walking home at 8:45 pm. That's all she said. For it to take 10 minutes to walk 200 meters they would be walking at 1/5 normal walking speed on a cold dark night. This is not logical and not a fair assumption. All I'm asking for is a note that says the exact time is not known and Sophie assumed the time because she arrived home before her TV program came on at 9 pm. As mentioned this information is in the Massie report. As we all know, Sophie guessed at the time. Why not make that clear to the reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't be getting into the business of investigating whether we think the facts presented by the witnesses make sense. If a reliable source has done this then that's another matter. But there are all sorts of things we might not know about which would explain why the timings are different to what you might expect from looking at Google maps. Perhaps the road layout has changed in the last few years. Or maybe they stopped to stroke a cat.

On the other hand, I'm not really sure why it is important to tell the reader this level of detail in the first place, so maybe it could be shortened to something like: Kercher spent the early evening with three friends. She walked part of the way back to her flat with one of the friends and they parted company a short distsance from it at around 8:55 pm. --FormerIP (talk) 09:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a known fact that Sophie estimated the time she arrived home. Judge Michel's report, Massie's Motivation report, and all the news articles indicate Sophie estimated the time. I can't understand why you don't want to acknowledge this fact in this article. On Nov 2, 2007 Sophie stated to the police investigators that she arrived home at 9 pm. Later she remembered she got home before her TV program started at 9 pm so on Nov 17, 2007 she gave a statement to the police investigators and estimated she got home at perhaps 8:55 pm. The time given is definitely an estimate and the fact should be noted. Sophie Perton was the last person to see Meredith alive and the time a person was last seen alive is important to any murder investigation. The fact that Sophie is estimating the time should be acknowledged in this article. A blurred figure of perhaps a woman entering Meredith's apartment driveway was captured on the parking garage CCTV cam at 8:53 pm Nov 1 ,2007. There was no cam footage of anyone entering the driveway later in the evening. This is a strong indication that Sophie's estimate of the time was wrong. I know this can not be included in this article but the fact that Sophie estimated the time should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the word "about" which is currently in the text not sufficiently acknowledge that this is an estimate? I think most readers would take "about 8:55 pm" to include the possibilty that the actual time was 8:53. I don't understand why this is so important. --FormerIP (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blurred figure seen on the garage camera is presumed to be Meredith, but the 8:53 pm time found in some news accounts may not be accurate. Is 8:53 pm the time recorded by the CCTV camera or an adjusted time? (The prosecution claimed the camera clock was 10 minutes fast, the defense claimed it was 10 minutes slow). An 8:53 pm camera time adjusted for being 10 minutes slow is 9:03 pm. This is consistent with the 8:55 PM parting time Sophie gave in her deposition. But without a RS for this explanation, it doesn't belong in the article. --Footwarrior (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ FormerIP: Given the girls started their walk at 8:45 pm, the calculated time Meredith would have arrived at the corner is 8:47 pm which is not about 8:55 IMO. @ Footwarrior: 8:53 pm is the adjusted time for Meredith arriving in front of the parking garage cam. It is a 5 minute walk from the corner to the parking garage entrance so 8:47 + 5 = 8:53. The footage was time stamped for 8:43 so 8:43 + 10(time adjustment) = 8:53 which is the approximate calculated time Meredith would arrive at the parking garage entrance given they started walking home at 8:45 pm. There is sufficient proof on Perugia Shock that the cam timer was actually 10 minutes slow. I'm not asking for the cam timer debate to be included in this article. All I'm asking for is a note that indicates Sophie estimated the time based on her arriving home before her TV show came on at 9 pm. As you know this statement is in the referenced document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoyohooyo (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article "Forensic evidence" The body was found on the floor of Kercher's bedroom, with blood and footprints in various locations in the room.[27]:10"

Is "footprints" a typo? I am aware of Guede's bloody shoe prints being found in Meredith's bedroom, but I don't know of any foot-prints found in her bedroom.--Yoyohooyo (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not getting it. Why does "about" not give us the information we need (ie that the time is estimated)? You seem to be agreeing that 8:47 is just based on original research, as is 8:53 and so we can't discuss those times in the article. So what we are left with is "about 8:55". Why do we need to know more than this? Why would it be of interest to know that Sophie got home in time for a TV show at 9 pm? --FormerIP (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. "About" is synonymous with "approximately" here. What is the relevance to this article of attempting to ascertain a more accurate time than that?  pablo 15:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you quote the source document in it's entirety to clarify the bases of the time recalled by Sophie. The Massei report states "She said good-bye to Meredith about ten minutes later, at 20:55 pm. She remembered the time because she wanted to be home at 21:00 pm to see a television programme she was interested in." This would approach reality more effectively than saying it was about 8:55 pm, given she did not say she looked at a clock. I'm obsessed with accuracy, especially when it involves the time a murder victim was last seen alive. A quote from the source is the best accuracy we can achieve under the rules we must follow, therefore I suggest that the quote would be the proper way to do this. What do you think about the quote? I don't know of any qualified source more accurate. I don't think Google Maps is a qualified source so we can't state the distance traveled although average walking speeds could likely be found in many qualified sources, but would be of no value given Sophie did not say if they stopped along the way or did not stop. I guess the best we could go with is a quote from the sourced document. Even if it is possible for us to state distance and average walking speed the fact that the time they left on the walk was also an estimate creates a problem also. The only thing we can do under the wiki rules is quote the source verbatim. I clicked on signature but it's not working right??? . Yoyohooyo (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the last sentence (paragraph) of the section to be problematic. I question its germaneness. I am sure Stephanie Kercher did love her sister and believe her to be wonderful. But both Knox and Sollecito had sisters and friends and family who loved them too and I believe it would be possible to find well sourced quotes that portrayed them very favorably. The question is are these encomiums necessary? Do we want to go in that direction? I have no insuperable objection to that sentence staying provided that we make an effort to find similarly supportive quotes for RS, AK, and RG.

Or we could just say that a quote like that is not germane and remove it.

I note in passing that the sections devoted to MK and RG are much longer than those devoted to RS and AK. Shouldn't more info go in the latter.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PietroLegno (talk • contribs) 21:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed it [5].TMCk (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't think that last sentence adds anything to the article, it can go.
The section on Kercher, as a portrait of the victim, isn't disproportionally large.
Guede's section is slightly bigger than Sollecito's and Knox's, but I suppose the question is; what information do you think should be added to these two sections?  pablo 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the portrait of Meredith is not overly long. My idea is that we decide what info is germane in the portraits of all these young people and then briefly fill it in. So for both RS and AK I would try to sketch in the same things that are in MK's portrait--stuff about school, families, siblings, interesting accomplishments etc.PietroLegno (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is minor, but the author of the opinionator blog referenced in note #102 is clearly Timothy Eagan not Arthur C. Danto. I was going to make a simple technical change in the citation but discovered I didn't understand the citation code. How did Danto get in there? He has contributed to the opinionator blog elsewhere but has nothing to do with Eagan's article so far as I can tell. The praise or the blame for what is said should be directed at Eagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PietroLegno (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.TMCk (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]