Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Lead Misleading

Rudy Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted on 28 October 2008 of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. His fast-track conviction was upheld, and he is now serving a sentence of 16 years, reduced after he incriminated Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American.[1]

Reference 1 although a new article is misleading because it says "Rudy Guede, an Ivorian drifter with a criminal record, was also sentenced in October 2008 to 30 years in jail for taking part in Kercher's murder." There is no mention of his sentence being reduced to 16 years on appeal.

It implies his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others, but they had already been arrested and found guilty. Also where does it say his sentence was reduced because he incriminated the others.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-12-22/world/italy.kercher.murder.american_1_amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-raffaele-sollecito?_s=PM:WORLD

Says the reduction was "The reduction was based on technical calculations prescribed by the Italian penal code, he said." The reduction was a standard reduction at appeal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/22/rudy-guede-sentence-kercher-murder

Says "Guede's lawyer, Walter Biscotti, said his client's sentence had been cut after his youth and lack of criminal record were taken into account. The appeal court had reduced Guede's sentence to 24 years and cut one-third off as is custom when defendants opt for a fast-track trial, said Francesco Maresca."

The others were arrested before him and had already been convicted before his appeal. The lead gives the impression that their trial followed (and was caused by) his "incriminated" them.

Kwenchin (talk) 13:47, October 4, 2011‎ (UTC)

Allegation that Guede was lone killer

If a section is called this it should summarise the reasons which those making the allegations it give for their assertions. Such a section does not claim to be definitive but just report the allegations. I feel the section is weak as though there is concern about not doing to Guede what others did to Knox/Sollecito. Please remember that Knox/Sollecito were the ones having allegations made about them by Guede and that's why people pointed out the holes in Guedes story. The prosecution didn't.

Guede claimed Kercher met with him on Halloween, but her friends testified that they had gone partying with her, and none of them saw her talking to Guede.[7] Guede claimed Kercher was fully dressed when stabbed, but blood spots on her skin indicated that her T-shirt was pulled above her bra when she was stabbed.[7] Guede claimed the white pillow remained on the bed, but it was found under the body, marked with his left shoe print (from Nike Outbreak 2 tennis shoes) and his palm-print in blood.[7] "There were five left Nike shoe prints in blood on the pillowcase that had been shoved under Kercher’s hips. There were three more bloody left shoe prints on the tile floor around the body, matching those on the pillowcase."(BURLEIGH) Guede claimed that he did not return to undress and move the body, but the bra and severed bra strap had DNA matching Guede's DNA genetic profile,[7] also on her body and handbag. Guede claimed he did not break the upstairs window in the third bedroom, but just 5 days earlier, he had been caught afterhours in a Milan school, with a laptop computer and mobile phone stolen from a law office burgled with a rock breaking through an upstairs window.[7]( you don't include the detail that it was an upstairs window) Guede claimed he had not stabbed Kercher, but when caught inside the Milan school on 27 October 2007, the local police searched his backpack and found a kitchen knife stolen from the school kitchen.[7].(Micheli) The footprints were all Guedes left Nike,and there was a small piece of glass embedded in a print made by the sole of Rudy Guede's Nike 2 Outbreak tennis shoe on the floor of the bedroom.(Telegraph) "The only identifiable fingerprints in Meredith’s room were Guede’s, although 14 were unmatchable" (BURLEIGH)

refs ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 Micheli Judgment (Motivation) 2009-01-26, recap for October 2008 trial of Rudy Guede, (Google Translation, Italian to English): Translate.google, Italian webpage: Pen.it., Guede's trial report Telegraph BURLEIGH, Guedes trial, Telegraph. Overagainst (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sollecito's lawyers said during the trial of Guede that a glass fragment found embedded in Guede's shoeprint at the scene proved that he had broken in though the window. Source:Guede's trial report Telegraph. If one fact is mentioned it should be that one. Overagainst (talk) 10:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a "Wtf?" moment with that section too. It notes the theory (and it is really the defence theory more than an allegation) and then goes off on a random note about a 2007 indicident - I don't follow the context of why it relates to showing Guede acted alone :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting that this isn't a defence theory anymore. It was the conclusion of all the trials and appeals, which upheld only the conviction against him. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure 'theory' is putting it strongly enough. Guede had previously been found with goods stolen in a 'rock through an upstairs window cat burglary'. He had never been to the girls apartment but his DNA was found all over the victim and scene of the crime including in Ms. Kerchers handbag (theft). Raffaele Sollecito had been to the girl's apartment and had close contact with Ms. Knox, her clothing, her bedroom and some door handles, but the only exhibit which the police said had his DNA on it in Kercher's bedroom was the bra clasp. The independent experts got three months to deliver their report plus an extension of 40 days. They totally discredited the knife from Sollecito's kitchen as evidence (wasn't scrubbed, had potato starch on it not blood, the claimed identification of Kercher's DNA could not have been done with the techniques claimed) Here is what they said about the bra clasp which was the other key piece of evidence. "The exhibit was retrieved 46 days after the crime, in a context that was highly suggestive of ambient contamination," (Most noteably it was handled with dirty gloves).Italian police 'used dirty gloves handling Amanda Knox evidence'. Overagainst (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this information. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's probably me being thick; but I still don't understand the context of the 2007 incident. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just one of the sections that hasn't been fixed up yet. The significance of the previous incidents is that he was breaking into places, including using a rock through the window, and carrying or stealing knives. So the argument is that the break-in at Via Della Pergola 7 was his MO, and that perhaps Meredith Kercher walked in on him, while he expected the house to be empty for awhile. There is other material in his background that's interesting and very sad (and relevant). I've not added it because I'm worried about the article being too focused on making a case against Guede, just as it previously made a case against Knox/Sollecito. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Follain says Guede is entitled to a further reduction for his good behaviour and will be released long before the 16 years is up.Overagainst (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

New Book

Saw this review. Though it proclaims otherwise, this is obviously an extremely POV book (or at least the article about it is), but if the Guardian is reviewing it, it's probably worth putting in the bibliography. [1] LedRush (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it? "A prosecuting lawyer called her "a sorceress of deceit" (he also compared her to Joseph Goebbels). "They reminded the jury that footprints found at the crime scene were compatible with Knox and Sollecito and insisted on the credibility of a homeless man (clarification heroin addict/dealer/ professional witness in murder trials) who claimed he saw the pair on the night of the murder near the house in which Miss Kercher was killed, contradicting their alibis. " Amanda Knox compared to Goebbels by prosecutors.

This is POV too - 'You can't prove these smudges weren't made by you, we have a junkie to testify against you, now we've corrected his story (he originally said it was Halloween) he'll be as reliable for us as he was in 2 previous murder trials. You'll be 50 before you get out, ha ha ha'. That sentence contains more relevant information than the excepts quoted from the book in the review IMO. Burleigh's work is genuine journalism and far far superior in every way.

"Prosecutor Giuliano Miginini is, in my opinion, a rambling, confused individual,” says CNN investigative correspondent Drew Griffin." Interview with Miginini. Overagainst. (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that stuff in the article, but whatever. So, are you saying the book should be included or shouldn't? I say it should be.LedRush (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The book is not self published and we have a review of it in a RS. So yes, I'd say it should be added the the article.TMCk (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it reads like clip job of newspaper rep0rts in the ITALIAN PRESS. let's take the things that the review points up, these are presumably the most telling.

It states- "It was immediately clear to detectives who attended the crime scene that a burglary had been faked. Windows had been smashed, but they were too high for a burglar" then it says "The flat's front door hadn't been forced." Sorry, but isn't that a circular argument?

It states without qualification that they bought bleach that morning "the fact that the young lovers had bought bleach the following morning suggested they were trying to cover their tracks."

"Doubts had been raised about the DNA evidence: the bra clasp had been found 46 days after the initial police search and contamination seemed a possibility."

No, contamination is a proven certainty "Dr Vecchiotti replied that it contained too many different traces to be reliable, noting that apart from the victim's DNA and that of Sollecito, she ( Interjection by Overagainst: I think 'she' here means police scientist Patrizia Stefanoni who was the only one to test the bra clasp, Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti couldn't retest the bra clasp because it had been allowed to get rusty. Vecchiotti and Conti used what records Stefanoni was able to supply of her results during the testing procedure to analyse Stefanoni's work) had found small traces of at least 16 other people; including herself – presumably as a result of contamination. "Anyone's DNA could be on there," she said tersely." Independent, Experts dismiss DNA evidence

A forensic science blog post."Based on the ‘additional’ peaks flagged by Conti and Vecchiotti there may well be DNA from multiple males in low quantity on the bra clasps. It does not seem likely that multiple male individuals would have touched the bra clasp with their hand. What then does the DNA evidence on the bra clasp mean? It is no surprise that Meredith Kercher would be the primary DNA donor on her bra clasp. Her DNA would be expected to be deposited on the clasps by her touching the clasp and by the clasp presumably having contact with her skin when the bra is worn. The DNA on the bra clasp that is consistent with Sollecito is at a much lower level and there is no information as to what type of cellular material is responsible for the DNA. It is not known when the DNA consistent with Sollecito was deposited on the clasp. [..] It has to be kept in mind that DNA testing is now extraordinarily sensitive, perhaps to a fault. DNA laboratories go through great lengths to ensure that DNA from analysts or other cases does not end up associated with evidence that is being processed. Laboratories and the tools used are almost obsessively cleaned with bleach solutions, and protocols include many steps to minimize the chance for contamination. Nevertheless, every DNA lab sees contamination at some point. The bottom line is that DNA can be easily transferred, and today’s sensitive DNA tests can detect transfers of low levels of DNA.[...]These factors have the potential to have introduced contamination onto the bra clasps. It is unclear how and when the DNA on the bra clasps got there. There are major concerns regarding the collection of the evidence. All things considered, the weight of the evidence of the finding of DNA consistent with Rafaelle Sollecito on the bra clasps is highly questionable particularly since this is the only piece of DNA evidence associating Sollecito with the crime."

UNDERSTANDING THE INDEPENDENT DNA EXPERTS’ REPORT IN THE AMANDA KNOX CASE (PART 2). Overagainst (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Questioned about the analysis of Kercher's bra clasp believed in the original trial to contain Sollecito's DNA, one of the independent experts, Carla Vecchiotti said she found it contained too many traces to be reliable. [...]She said some of the evidence may have been contaminated by dust containing mixed traces of DNA, as well as through sloppy police work. Vecchiotti said that apart from the victim's DNA, she had found small traces of at least 17 other people including Sollecito and herself -- presumably as a result of her being the one who carried out the most recent tests.

"I didn't mention them in my report because there are too many," she said. "Your DNA could be on it, just like mine. Anyone's DNA could be on there!".

Knox appeal resumes with heated exchanges over DNA evidence. The police forensic scientist threatened to sue by the way, she hasn't. Overagainst (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've added it to the bottom of the page. As stated, the criteria for inclusion are 1) not having been self-published and 2) having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Personal opinions about the quality of the writing and other matters count for nothing. SuperMarioMan 20:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The quality of the reporting is poor, known and proven contamination is reported as "seemed a possibility". In a word, that is wrong.Overagainst (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity. Have you actually read the book?TMCk (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We should use the best sources. this is a very long way from being the best. Even Ledrush says that, contrary to what the review claims, the book is not at all objective. As for reading it, well presumably the reviewer actually read the book. I cited the fallibilty of the book on matters of fact. The very things the reviewer pointed up as established facts indicative of K and S's being involved in the murder are, at best, allegations by the prosection. At worst just wrong. Here is another one "No burglar, detectives thought, would have locked Kercher's room" (Er he was a murderer by that point) "Now, as the prosecution appeal to overturn the acquittal, there will probably be another trial" (Whaaat!). The Guardian ran this lauditory review of a hard line 'guilter' book ( it is) to balance its reporting of the case and not for any merit in the book. The reviewer will probably have his own forthcoming book reviewed by Follain in due course. Transcript of a live online Sunday Times discussion with foreign correspondent John Follain on Monday 7 March 2011. "Sunday Times Foreign Editor: Welcome to John Follain, foreign correspondent for The Sunday Times who has covered Italy since 1998. He has written a book about the murder of Meredith Kercher which is out in August (Ha!). [...] Folain: "Given that more than 20 judges have so far ruled that AK is guilty, I think the appeal court will head the same way - although it could reducer both the sentences for both her and Sollecito. [...] the key hearing will be in late May when the court-appointed experts report back on their review of the DNA evidence found on the kitchen knife believed to be the murder weapon, and on Meredith’s bra clasp in her bedroom. Yes contamination is in theory always possible but I see nothing to indicate that happened here." In view of the masses of US experts who said the DNA evidence was totally unreliable it is not clear to me why he would say that. I think Follain is in love with Italy and that has skewed his judgement. To be fair Follain is not stupid enough to think Amanda Knox inflicted the wounds to the throat of her friend Meredith Kercher. Even I was never stupid enough to believe that. There is no parrallel for such a crime to be committed by a young woman, not a one. Anyway, the fatal wound was not a slicing cut with a long bladed knife, the wound was 3 inches long and 3 inches deep it was a stab and rip such as only a extraordinarily strong woman could inflict on a well built girl like Kercher. You might as well say Knox can do a one armed pull up as say she did that. And a character like Guede is going to be ordered around by a 20 year old girl ? Overagainst (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

We should use the best sources. this is a very long way from being the best. I don't disagree, but the book isn't being used as a source, is it? (Does it appear in any of the article's inline citations? If so, I don't see them.) Your objections to this title are based solely on original research and personal opinion. To follow up the recommendations given by other users on your talk page, please focus your discussion contributions on the development of the article itself and refrain from adding speculation such as "To be fair Follain is not stupid enough to think Amanda Knox inflicted the wounds to the thoat of her her friend Meredith Kercher. Even I was never stupid enough to believe that" and "You might as well say Knox can do a one armed pull up as say she did that. And a character like Guede is going to be ordered around by a 20 year old girl ?" Such forum-style discussion is inappropriate for a talk page. SuperMarioMan 11:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The section opened with someone offering an opinion "is obviously an extremely POV book (or at least the article about it is), but if the Guardian is reviewing it, it's probably worth putting in the bibliography". I pointed out that it is likely the Guardian is giving a strongly anti-Knox book a review by a reviewer likely to be favourable so as to balence its coverage of the case. The merits of the book were discussed quite accurately. The review of the book states that "Windows had been smashed, but they were too high for a burglar" That is very much an opinion but, going by the review, in the book it is stated as a fact.

Here is an even more blatant example, going by the review the book says - "and the fact that the young lovers had bought bleach the following morning suggested they were trying to cover their tracks". That is not a fact AT ALL. I don't think there is anyone who would claim that can be said to be anything but an allegation which was part of the prosecution case, one which is very very hotly disputed. The book simply ignores the defence case and gives an account of unstubstatiated prosecution allegations as if they were facts. Development of the article will be damaged if this book can be quoted as a source it is demonstrably unreliable as I belive I have shown. The author interview shows it was originally going to be published in August and that it was delayed, obviously that was because the book was wrongfooted by the DNA review. The author said "Given that more than 20 judges have so far ruled that AK is guilty, I think the appeal court will head the same way". That is a strange way of looking at an appeal, it goes without saying that many judges would have to have ruled a defendant guilty in a case before they reached an adnvanced appeal stage. Now they have a book which claims to be the definitive one on the case and has come out at the right time and I think it is very bad book. I didn't like the book but I gave Follain credit for doubting that Knox was the ringleader who ordering Guede and S about as wall as being a torturer and the one who cut Kerchers throat. I gave reasons for that assertion; that there is no parrallel for a crime of that sort being committed by a two young men led by a young woman. (If you know of such a case please cite it.) So Follain is too credulous but has made some good judgements. I mentioned that I used to believe much the same as he seems to and that it now seems a foolish opinion to hold. There are many experts who think the injuries to Kercher are only consistant with a swift attack by a strong man and that knox is not phisically capable of inflicting the fatal wound .Overagainst (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what others are saying, Overagainst, and you are ignoring, is that the book is not used as a source at all. The criteria for inclusion is (appoximately) that it is not self-published or that it is otherwise notable (as evidenced by reviews in reliable sources). This book meets those prongs so it goes in. If you respond to this, please do not (a) create an unreadable wall of text; (b) point out incorrect statements in the article or book; (c) generally ignore the central issue of criteria for inclusion.LedRush (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"If the Guardian is reviewing it, it's probably worth putting in the bibliography". I pointed out that it is likely the Guardian is giving a strongly anti-Knox book a review by a reviewer likely to be favourable so as to balence its coverage of the case.

(If you know of a case where a female has inflicted such a wound as Kercher suffered please cite it). My mode of expession may have been a little misjudged but the basis of what I said was sound. I don't think this book should be mentioned at all in the bibliography. Discussion of books has to involve some evaluation of their worth and why it is being reviewed in a major newspaper is part of that. I don't think this one was mentioned on its merits.(a self published book could get in the Biblio if enough people thought it was of value I think) At some point an opinion has to be offered as to the value of a book. That is all I was doing. A point of view can be advanced without openly stating it, I have noticed those quick on the draw with personal research/POV allegations are not without their own agendas. I prefer to be open about what I think. I'm sorry if you found it an affront to the high standards of this talk page, I'll moderate my tone in future. Overagainst (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to look at value, especially as many of these books are by authors who either think K/S are innocent or guilty and the value of the books is judged very differently by a reader depending on their views of the same. There is a self-published book that is regarded very highly by people who think K/S are innocent, yet it is not in the bibliography as it does not meet the notability standards (and rightfully so, IMO).LedRush (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So just to sum up the insanity of your position, LedRush. Let's say there is a Wikipedia article about you. And let's say I write a book which makes the libelous claim that you are a child molester. The book is reviewed by the Guardian. Are you actually saying that you would defend the inclusion of that book in a bibliography contained in an article about you personally? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a policy on this which would support a contrary result? Of course, any such claims would not be in the article, unless of course my lawsuit agains the author/publisher hit the news.LedRush (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. My question was this: ' Are you actually saying that you would defend the inclusion of that book in a bibliography contained in an article about you personally? ' CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst, Cody - you need to listen here. The criteria for inclusion are pretty much as LedRush has stated. Your judgment of the book's value is irrelevant. pablo 19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The book contains libelous statements. Proven libelous statements. And I'm not talking to you. I'm waiting for a response from LedRush. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Cody, I thought I did answer it, but I'll do so even more clearly. Unless someone can point me to a a policy reason to not include, yes I would have to support its inclusion in the article. I would be pissed by it. But many policies on WP would piss me off if I had articles about me.LedRush (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit - You did in fact answer the question. But it's very easy when it's hypotheticals and you and your little Wiki buddies are safely hiding behind your keyboards, isn't it? CodyJoeBibby (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it makes it easier. But it doesn't change the result. BTW, I love how I'm punching bag to all the editors who had always taken the view that we couldn't explain the controversy on this page (they accused me of being pro-knox) and by all the new editors who wanted the article to describe the case more as the defense saw it, often at the expense of the prosecution side (they accused me of being pro-guilt). Gotta love it. Anyhoo, I don't know who my little Wiki buddies are seeing as everyone seems to publicly insult me and my opinions, but, whatever.LedRush (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Not-self published and reviewed by reliable sources, so the book listing is restored. Bibby is cordially reminded to stop edit-warring and stop insulting others on the article talk page. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Books listed under 'Further reading and external links'

Ledrush said "it's probably worth putting in the bibliography". I accept that Follain's book qualifies for inclusion in a 'Bibliography' section, however it is actualy included under a section called 'Further reading and external links'. By my way of thinking that does imply a degree of endorsement by Wikipedia. I think that there should be two sections, one section External Links and one called called 'Bibliography'. Overagainst (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

In Court During trial

Maybe relevant that Knox and S were not put in the courtroom cage often used for those accused of violent crime. Also Knox and S were not handcuffed at all while in court although this is the procedure for those accused of violent crime (she was, I think, cuffed to the chair during her police interrogation). Guede was handcuffed. Massed ranks of photographers were allowed several minutes to take pictures of Knox sitting in court before the proceedings began each day. Vituperative language used to describe Knox in court.Overagainst (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the specific edit you want to make? Brmull (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

One that mentions that they were held in preventive detention, ostensibly because they were thought to be dangerous, but not put in cages or even cuffed while in court. I don't think it is worth saying about Guede being cuffed/body belted. I suggest something like_

"Although held in preventive detention until acquitted by trial of the second grade (secondo grado), Knox and Sollecito sat with their lawyers instead of being put in the cages often used for those accused of violence (which were used to seat journalists covering the case). Very unusually for someone charged with violent crime she was not handcuffed in court. Photographers were permitted to take pictures of Knox for several minutes at the beginning of each day of her trial." sourcesNewsweek, Burleigh 2011.

Error in article?

The article says "In testimony to the second appeal, Professor Conti said [...][81]". Wasn't this in fact at the first 'appeal' (the 'trial of the second grade')? Overagainst (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Bruce Fisher's book from the list of books

Bruce Fisher's book, Injustice in Perugia: a Book Detailing the Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, was removed from the list of books because it was self-published (via CreateSpace).

It is Wikipedia policy that the use of self-published sources as references for Wikipedia articles is generally not appropriate. Is there a similar restriction for the inclusion of a book in a list of books published on a particular topic? In this case the book seems to have achieved reasonably wide distribution, (there were 58 mostly positive reviews of it on Amazon.com), it's available in a professional looking paper back version, a kindle version, a nook version, and an android version. It is referenced numerous places on the web and sections of it have been published in Google Books.

There was a discussion above on the Follain book about whether it should be added to the list of books. Based on a review of that book in the Guardian it appears to be full of completely discredited information about the Kercher murder and yet reasonably enough it has been added to the list of books about the case because it provides information about the notoriety of the case, the amount of articles and books published about the case and the view point of those authors. Fisher's book is another element of that story and I think it should be in the list of books published about the case.--Davefoc (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-published books should be removed from any article that they appear in, just as blogs or other user-generated things are. If we let the works of every average schmoe get listed in "see also" type of sections, they will soon come to dwarf the article itself. Tarc (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Some previous discussions re. this book can be found here and here.TMCk (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to both responders, I suppose I'm not going to win this one, but I do disagree with you both. I looked at the two links: One of them referred to the use of self-published material as sources and one of them referred to links to biographies of living people. Neither of these were on point. The important issue for inclusion of a book in a list of books associated with a topic, IMHO, is whether the book has significant enough notability to be reasonably included. Fisher's book clearly meets that standard. As to Tarc's slippery slope argument: Where is the evidence that inclusion of the Fisher book and the other book referenced in the previous discussion would lead to the dwarfing of this article? There are only two books that people have advocated to be added to this list, that falls vastly short of dwarfing the article. How many self published books are there on this case and have any of them achieved the notability of the Fisher and Waterbury books?--Davefoc (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense what Tarc is saying. But there is also a case for not allowing books to be put into the bibliography unless they have been consulted in the writing of the article, I think. It's a kind of spamming to stick a book in a section on the end of an article when it is really unconnected with it except by subject. Some articles could have scores of legit books listed. Including ones that no one has read yet with titles like "The Definitive Acount of .... Overagainst (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The policy for articles about living persons (and this is one, because of the material about the accused, prosecutors, police etc) is that no third-party self-published material is allowed as a source or further reading. See WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPFR. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's argument above seems compelling and I withdraw my original objection to the removal of Fisher's book from the book list. From SlimVigin's second link: "External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy." I agree that inclusion of information about Mignini makes the book subject to this restriction. Thank you for the response. --Davefoc (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry it's not what you wanted, but we have that rule for a good reason, mostly to do with the increased risk of defamation in self-published material that hasn't been reviewed by a publisher and their lawyers. I'm not talking about this particular book, by the way, but in general terms only. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that logic, so not only did I agree that the book should not have been listed as per Wikipedia policy, I also agreed that the policy was correct.--Davefoc (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If the risk of defamation is the issue then I would remind everyone that Amanda Knox is a living person too. Paddy Hill of the the Birmingham Six won a court case after he was mentioned in 'An Anthology Of Modern Irish Poetry'.( "one of the six men accused, perhaps wrongly, of bombing a pub in Birmingham, England".) I'd be careful of allowing Follain's book to be cited in the article.Overagainst (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like some sort of legal threat. Could you clarify?TMCk (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What needs to be clarified is whether those making claims about Follain's book have actually read it. I have. All the examples of alleged libel are clearly attributed, not stated as fact. The book is easily the most objective of all the books on this case, such that partisans of both sides will at times be annoyed. Most of it consists of a day-by-day journal without any commentary or analysis. There is zero reason to question this source on POV or legal grounds. Brmull (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's clear enough TMCk, if avoiding legal action is an issue, when in doubt don't. Louis Blom-Cooper is a QC, a top lawyer yet a unsuccessful defamation case was brought against him for something he was alleged to have merely implied about the Birmingham Six. It is not necessary to state something as a fact to be sued for defamation, whatever you might think Brmull.Overagainst (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no concern here for defamation by including Follain. No legal actions have been expressed or implied, right?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read Follain's book. I read the Guardian review. That review repeated as fact things that are at least disputed and I think discredited, but I don't think that matters with regard to Wikipedia's libel exposure. Wikipedia (meaning the community) has exercised due diligence by assuring that the book was published by an established publishing company that presumably had lawyers to vet the book. While I originally argued that Fisher's book should have been listed, I see now that not listing self published books is a way of demonstrating due diligence, good faith and reasonable ethics when it comes to referring to a published book that might contain libelous material (as theoretically all books might).--Davefoc (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Being in a list of books 'Further reading' is different to being referenced or cited for an assertion or implication in the article. Just like 'External links' are different to being in the article. My point was to advise caution about allowing Follain's book to be cited in the article as the reference for any assertion or implication. Yes , not listing self published books is a way of demonstrating due diligence, good faith and reasonable ethics when it comes to referring to a published book that might contain libelous material but that does not mean any assertion or implication which appears in a book from an established publishing company can be reproduced or paraphased on Wikipedia with impunity. The text on Wikipedia might be referenced to a book but be slightly different to the wording that a lawyer veted. Overagainst (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)