This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Multiple courts have ruled that it is a proven fact that Anni's killing was a murder for hire.
An attempt is being made to censor this fact from the Wikipedia article by asserting the spurious claim that the Dewani judgment ruled it was *not* a contract killing. Nowhere does the judgement rule that the murder was not a murder for hire. And nowhere does the judgment rule that its findings should be taken as supplanting multiple other courts' finding of fact that the killing was, indeed, a murder for hire.
Furthermore, not only did the Dewani judgement not find the killing was not a murder for hire, it actually *abstains* from making any definitive determination on that subject. In fact, the Dewani judgment takes pains to restrict its ruling to one very narrowly defined question. Namely, whether or not Shrien Dewani was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy (whatever its precise nature happened to be) that led to Anni's death:
"It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences. The only issue to determine is whether the evidence shows that the accused was part of that conspiracy." (quoted from the Dewani judgement, italized emphasis mine).
The current lede paragraph in the "Murder of Anni Dewani" is non-neutral, loaded, rhetoric that a) conceals central facts of the case and b) contains false claims unsupported by the source cited. For these reasons the lede paragraph should be reverted to the neutral recitation of the salient facts of the case which I have previously provided. Lane99 ( talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No court decision has found [...] that there was, in fact, a "murder for hire"The court did find exactly that, as pointed out by Lane99 - "I find that the accused had made himself available at a price upon payment of R15 000,00, to be shared between himself and Qwabe, to execute the deceased." [1] Samsara 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
such was their determination to pin the crime on the foreignerI just wish we could keep these off-the-cuff commentaries out of this - they're not referenceable and they really neither belong nor help. Please just stick to the meat. Expanding on that, it's not our place to do original research on whether or not the trial was conducted properly. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but we just follow the sources - that's what Wikipedia does. Samsara 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Presumably no one really has a problem with the first or third paras, so it's just the second that Lane99 sees as editorialising:
Based on the later discredited confessions of three of the crime's perpetrators, who were found to have committed perjury, South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that Dewani had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. Following a long legal battle, Dewani was extradited from the UK to South Africa to face trial. He was exonerated, with the Western Cape High Court ruling in December 2014 that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against him.
Well, given that there are BLP issues re. Shrien, I take the view that the article should make clear that he's innocent, so I can't see a problem with the last sentence. There was also a long extradition legal battle, and it is a salient point, so that belongs. The first sentence is, I'd suggest, a reasonable summary of the situation, but I'd be happy to see the first two clauses removed, if that's what people want.
Key point. As far as I know, Shrien has been found to be innocent of the charges, not just acquitted at trial when a judge ruled the evidence presented in court was insufficient to sustain a conviction which, whilst true, is (I'd suggest) designed to imply otherwise.
Bromley86 (
talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a couple of minor amendments to final paragraph of the lede. Current wording is misleading and incomplete as it tends to give the impression that Tongo, Qwabe and Mngeni were only convicted of the single crime of murder. Given the circumstances of the case it is of significant importance to state the other major crimes that they were convicted of committing. I would suggest that the final paragraph be amended to read as below. Feedback from other editors?
In December 2010, Zola Tongo pleaded guilty to murder, kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and obstructing the administration of justice [1] and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. In August 2012, Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to kidnapping, robbery and murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison [2]. In November 2012, Xolile Mngeni pleaded not guilty, but was convicted of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder, and sentenced to life in prison [3].
References
This article is now under moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It will come off page protection later today. Please continue discussions about this article there. I will try to watch this discussion, but I may overlooked requests made here. I see that requests have been made about trials. Please clarify, at the dispute resolution noticeboard, whether those are requests to create new sections, or to create new articles. I intend to be resolving the controversy over the inclusion of the 2013 Panorama (TV series) episode with a Request for Comments and would like to know whether we need any other requests for comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Any editors who have issues about this article but have not addressed them yet at the dispute resolution noticeboard are invited to add themselves as parties and to raise their issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, two tags were applied to this article. One was an NPOV tag, questioning its neutrality. That tag will remain until the neutrality is resolved, probably by the RFC process. However, the other was a tag saying that this article fails to distinguish fact from fiction, and should be rewritten according to the fiction guidelines. Since this article is fact, that is the wrong tag. I will be removing it when the article comes off page protection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not make any controversial edits to this article after it comes off page protection. (Minor edits, such as correction of typos, are fine.) Take those requests to the dispute resolution noticeboard so that we can address them by moderated discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, apologies if I have misunderstood your direction. I am new to Wikipedia and was careful to act in a way that I thought was totally in line with your request to not make controversial edits. I interpreted your comments to mean that I should use the DRN if I was proposing new articles being created for the trials of Mngeni and Qwabe. That was not my intent at all, so I did not see anything controversial about simply creating headings on the existing page since the page had come off edit protection. I did not edit the Panorama section content, except to move it into the "Media Coverage" heading.
With the exception of one single edit, I don't believe any of my edits are/were controversial. They merely state facts of the case and the Court's findings and conclusions. The only edit that was controversial was the amendment to the opening paragraph of the article (that Lane99 has already reversed). My stated reason for editing this paragraph is that this line is so grossly misleading and deceptive that I feel that the matter should be discussed and resolved on the Talk page first, before permitting it to sit even another day on the main page. It directly contradicts the findings of the Western Cape High Court. Furthermore it parrots the false misleading propaganda that continues to be pumped out by fringe groups who do not accept the court's judgement and continue to attempt to paint Mr Dewani as guilty, despite overwhelming evidence and am emphatic Court Judgement that cleared him of all involvement. I would imagine that Wikipedia is not a tool that is suited to such a purpose? Dewanifacts ( talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for cooperating with the moderated discussion process.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, thanks I will read those guides. I'm still a bit unclear as to how future edits should be made. this is what I understand from your comments.1. Post suggested amendment to TALK page. 2. Wait for comment from others. 3. If no-one objects, then I am free to go ahead and make the edits. If others object, then we to and fro and aim to come to agreement on whether some/all of the proposed edits should be made to the page. Once agreement reach, I make the edits. If agreement cannot be reached, then I should post the matter on the DRN. If that fails to resolve dispute, then attempt an RFC. Is this an accurate summation of the process? So no edits aside from minor ones can ever be made straight into the article? Dewanifacts ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Nick Cooper above. The opening paragraph should not be the place to push a certain narrative which has since been tested and rejected elsewhere. That is far from neutral and highly misleading. It implies that Shrien Dewani was responsible for his wife's murder. Readers would then have to scroll right down to the bottom sections to discover that he was is fact completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and did not have a case to answer on those charges. Why try and shoe-horn in an erroneous finding of the court in S V Mngeni into the opening paragraph summary and state it like it is a fact? I think the motivations to do so speak for themselves. To avoid confusion the finding of the court in S v Mngeni should simply be noted in the Trial of Xolile Mngeni section which would also be the correct place to reference the Mngeni judgement currently at footnote [1]. In the same way that the conclusions of the court in S v Dewani should be in the Trial of Shrien Dewani section. Surely that would be a neutral way of presenting the very different findings of the courts in the respective trials. The Mngeni judgement alone is not an accurate, or current, determination of the fate of Anni Dewani and Wikipedia shouldn't be representing it as such. Can we reach consensus to implement the above suggestion as being a neutral representation of the situation? -- St.Barbra ( talk) 17:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Draft RFC: Validity of Statement About Murder for Hire
I am about to post the following RFC:
Is the statement that the murder of Anna Dewani was found to be a murder for hire acceptable to be presented as neutral point of view in the voice of Wikipedia?
I am willing to change the wording of how the RFC is stated if there are suggestions that changes would improve its neutrality. I am also willing to add more than two options, as to how to present the murder-for-hire theory.
However, in the absence of other comments, this RFC will be posted with 36 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
“ | Before testifying in the Mngeni trial, key witness Monde Mbolombo read out a prepared statement confessing to lying in his two previous affidavits and promised to tell the truth when testifying.
On 19 November 2012, Mngeni was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in jail. The court accepted Qwabe and Mbolombo's version of events claiming that the crime was a contract killing. Mngeni was ruled to have been the person who shot Anni Dewani [1]. The findings of this court were superceded by the judgement in the later trial of Shrien Dewani, where the court found that the earlier determinations had been made on the basis of flawed forensics [2], and perjury of the two key witnesses Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Monde Mbolombo [3] [4] In July 2014, it was confirmed that a medical parole application had been made for Mngeni who was terminally ill with a brain tumour. [5] [6] He was denied parole, [7] and died in jail on 18 October 2014. [8] [9] [10] |
” |
A few comments above, I suggested that for the sake of completeness the court's acceptance of the contract killing story in the the S v Mngeni trial should be mentioned in the Mngeni trial section. The suggested wording places that finding in the appropriate context with the appropriate weight and I believe stays well within BLP policy. Is there any objection to this proposed edit? If not, then someone should go ahead and make it. That should forever put to bed the "murder for hire" issue. Dewanifacts ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Samsara A rogue editor (Advocate BG) is making changes to this article that defy consensus. What is the process to warn this editor against the approach being taken and revert the edits until consensus has been gained? Dewanifacts ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Advocate BG You are attempting to insert material that constitutes a grave WP:BLP violation into the lede paragraph. If you want to propose changes, do so on this talk page and once consensus has been achieved you will be most welcome to make the amendments to the article. Consensus does not have to be unanimous, but the thrust of the views put forward by the various editors taking part need to be in alignment. You will be reported for sanctions if you continue to attempt to insert libellous material into the article. You appear to have only created a Wikipedia account today. Good faith is assumed however if your very first action upon joining Wikipedia is to start making controversial article edits (that violate WP:BLP) you can expect to be treated rather harshly by other editors. Dewanifacts ( talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing pipe in: |work=
(
help)
I have explicitly placed this page under BLP discretionary sanctions. New editors are reminded that BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and taking up the positions of topic-banned editors may result in blocks. Editing the article against consensus may also result in blocks. Experienced editors can help out by placing discretionary sanctions notices on new editors' talk pages and notifying admins if problems persist. Bishonen and myself are familiar with the situation so you may want to approach us first. Please provide diffs if you do. -- NeilN talk to me 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to thank admins User:Bishonen and User:NeilN for taking action to deal with this mess. I became aware of this article and its controversy in August 2015, when it came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I tried to mediate it, but had to fail the mediation, because editors continued editing the article while I was trying to conduct moderated discussion. It doesn't appear to have improved in the past months. The conduct of the pro-guilt faction (trying to imply that the Shrien Dewani needs to be retried, or whatever) is appalling. They aren't the only editors behaving badly, just the worst ones. The appearance of new recruited anti-Dewani editors is suggestive of sockpuppetry. I would suggest that it may be appropriate to impose a 30-day/500-edit restriction on the article and this talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a legal commentary at WP:WikiProject Law from a common-law lawyer as to whether there really was a judicial finding that the murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. It is true that a court accepted a confession that the murder was a murder for hire, but the subsequent trial found that the confession contained lies. It is my understanding that common-law courts, unlike civil-law courts, do not make findings of fact sua sponte, because common law is adversarial, and a confession is not an adversary proceeding, so gives rise to no findings. (Civil law courts may conduct investigations, but a common law court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defendant.) The only adversarial proceeding, and therefore the only proceeding that found facts, was the trial of Shrien Dewani, which found that the criminals lied. (Most of the editors at that project who are lawyers are probably common-law lawyers, since most Anglophone countries are common-law countries, although it is true that there could be English-fluent European civil lawyers at that project.) In any case, I have requested a legal analysis, which, if it is as I think it will be, will further establish that the sockpuppets are posting nonsense. Once again, thanks to User:Bishonen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing RfC opened by blocked sockpuppet. Please don't add anything more to this section. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"It is clear to me the "Murder of Anni Dewani" article (as it appears on December 5, 2015) omits or downplays important facts about the murder, and is written from a non-neutral and partisan point of view." Two questions: (1) Yes or no, do you agree with the above statement? (2) If you answered yes to question 1: yes or no, do you further agree the current (as of December 5) lede section is particularly biased and should be replaced by the lede section written by Advocate BG (as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&oldid=693109604)? Noanon ( talk) 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Going back to the top of this section, the answer to both questions is yes. Everyone who knows about the murder conspiracy can see that, and increasingly have voiced their opinion in this section. Wikipedia should be ashamed of using their trusted platform as a Trojan Horse for a insidious PR campaign for the man who was charged with being the brains behind the murder conspiracy. ForbesHighland ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I fully agree with both questions. 86.185.240.77 ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I agree that the answer to both questions is yes; this article is biased.
Bishonen Samsara Robert McClenon Lane99 has now defied his topic ban yet again and edited the Article to reinstate the false information that is totally against consensus and constitutes a flagrant BLP violation. There is no doubt whatsoever that "AHindocha" is actually a sock of Lane99's. AHindocha has made a flurry of edits to get past the 10-edit semi protection filter, and surprise surprise - those edits just so happen to have been made to articles that relate to pet murder obsessions of Lane99's - Darlie Routier, Ryan Fergusen and the Dewani matter. This can be verified by taking a look at Lane99's twitter account - @perugiamurderfi. Amazingly - these are also the exact same articles edited by "Forbeshighland" - yet another of Lane99's socks who was born a few week ago and swiftly banned. This article needs to be protected and Lane99 and his socks need to be blocked from editing indefinitely. Dewanifacts ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Someone may also want to take some type of action due to the sockpuppet's username "AHindocha". Clearly this is a distasteful attempt to impersonate or pretend to be a family member of the deceased person Anni Dewani (nee Hindocha), whose brother's name happens to be Anish. It would seem that it violates Wiki username policy. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Username_policy Dewanifacts ( talk) 08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree this Wiki article is extremely biased and non-neutral. And the edit written by Advocate BG should be restored. I am surprised Wikipedia is permitting it's pages to be used by a PR agent with an agenda."tildes" "tildes" "tildes" Qween1991 ( talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Some statistics: I have to go back to 19 October 2015 to see an IP editing this talkpage without being an obvious sock. Ever since Lane99 was topic banned on 11 November, there has been an influx of disruptive IPs and brand new SPAs; there were none before that point in time. Conclusion: I'm going to semiprotect this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
The article does not seem to say what led the police to arrest the suspects – i.e., what led them to arrest and interrogate Mngeni, Qwabe, and Mbolombo. Is that known? That seems like a pretty significant gap in the content of the article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).References
Bromley86 You have added a number of "where" tags to the Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#Investigation:_sequence_of_arrests_and_confessions section. What information are you looking for? If you provide some specifics I would be happy to try to help. At this stage I'm not sure what the "where" tags mean. Dewanifacts ( talk) 11:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed WORKING DRAFT TO IMPROVE CITATIONS IN SECTION: Investigation: sequence of arrests and confessions
|
---|
As a result of a palm print found on the abandoned taxi, Xolile Mngeni was arrested on Tuesday 16 November 2010, [1] and made a videotaped confession in the presence of Captain Jonker of the South African Police Service. In his confession, Mngeni admitted involvement in a hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation [2]. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims and said Qwabe shot Anni Dewani during a struggle for her handbag. [3] Mziwamadoda Qwabe was arrested at around 01:00 on Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of a tip-off from a trusted township informant [4] in his local area. After initial denials, Qwabe was allowed to consult with arrested co-conspirators Mbolombo and Mngeni, and subsequently admitted involvement in the hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims [5]. He changed his story during an interview recorded at 17:21 that day, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. [6] Monde Mbolombo was arrested in the early hours of Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of Qwabe providing his name to the police. After initially denying involvement, Mbolombo made a recorded confession at 16:30, admitting arranging a hijacking and armed robbery operation. The confession did not mention a planned murder or Shrien Dewani's involvement. [7]. The following day, Mbolombo changed his story, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. [8] Zola Tongo reported the hijacking to a police station in Gugulethu after he was ejected from the vehicle, and made a statement saying he was an unknowing victim. [9] [10] On 17 November, Tongo gave a statement to Officer Hendrikse of the SAPS again saying he was an innocent victim. [11] The following day, Tongo appointed attorney William De Grass. On Saturday 20 November, Tongo surrendered to police and said the operation was a planned murder staged to look like a random hijack, at the behest of Shrien Dewani. [12] Dewanifacts ( talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC) References
|
Added citation to above working refinement of section Dewanifacts ( talk) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed working refinement of section, in interest of tidyness. Dewanifacts ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Multiple courts have ruled that it is a proven fact that Anni's killing was a murder for hire.
An attempt is being made to censor this fact from the Wikipedia article by asserting the spurious claim that the Dewani judgment ruled it was *not* a contract killing. Nowhere does the judgement rule that the murder was not a murder for hire. And nowhere does the judgment rule that its findings should be taken as supplanting multiple other courts' finding of fact that the killing was, indeed, a murder for hire.
Furthermore, not only did the Dewani judgement not find the killing was not a murder for hire, it actually *abstains* from making any definitive determination on that subject. In fact, the Dewani judgment takes pains to restrict its ruling to one very narrowly defined question. Namely, whether or not Shrien Dewani was an active participant in the criminal conspiracy (whatever its precise nature happened to be) that led to Anni's death:
"It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences. The only issue to determine is whether the evidence shows that the accused was part of that conspiracy." (quoted from the Dewani judgement, italized emphasis mine).
The current lede paragraph in the "Murder of Anni Dewani" is non-neutral, loaded, rhetoric that a) conceals central facts of the case and b) contains false claims unsupported by the source cited. For these reasons the lede paragraph should be reverted to the neutral recitation of the salient facts of the case which I have previously provided. Lane99 ( talk) 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No court decision has found [...] that there was, in fact, a "murder for hire"The court did find exactly that, as pointed out by Lane99 - "I find that the accused had made himself available at a price upon payment of R15 000,00, to be shared between himself and Qwabe, to execute the deceased." [1] Samsara 16:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
such was their determination to pin the crime on the foreignerI just wish we could keep these off-the-cuff commentaries out of this - they're not referenceable and they really neither belong nor help. Please just stick to the meat. Expanding on that, it's not our place to do original research on whether or not the trial was conducted properly. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but we just follow the sources - that's what Wikipedia does. Samsara 16:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Presumably no one really has a problem with the first or third paras, so it's just the second that Lane99 sees as editorialising:
Based on the later discredited confessions of three of the crime's perpetrators, who were found to have committed perjury, South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that Dewani had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. Following a long legal battle, Dewani was extradited from the UK to South Africa to face trial. He was exonerated, with the Western Cape High Court ruling in December 2014 that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against him.
Well, given that there are BLP issues re. Shrien, I take the view that the article should make clear that he's innocent, so I can't see a problem with the last sentence. There was also a long extradition legal battle, and it is a salient point, so that belongs. The first sentence is, I'd suggest, a reasonable summary of the situation, but I'd be happy to see the first two clauses removed, if that's what people want.
Key point. As far as I know, Shrien has been found to be innocent of the charges, not just acquitted at trial when a judge ruled the evidence presented in court was insufficient to sustain a conviction which, whilst true, is (I'd suggest) designed to imply otherwise.
Bromley86 (
talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest a couple of minor amendments to final paragraph of the lede. Current wording is misleading and incomplete as it tends to give the impression that Tongo, Qwabe and Mngeni were only convicted of the single crime of murder. Given the circumstances of the case it is of significant importance to state the other major crimes that they were convicted of committing. I would suggest that the final paragraph be amended to read as below. Feedback from other editors?
In December 2010, Zola Tongo pleaded guilty to murder, kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and obstructing the administration of justice [1] and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. In August 2012, Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to kidnapping, robbery and murder and was sentenced to 25 years in prison [2]. In November 2012, Xolile Mngeni pleaded not guilty, but was convicted of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder, and sentenced to life in prison [3].
References
This article is now under moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It will come off page protection later today. Please continue discussions about this article there. I will try to watch this discussion, but I may overlooked requests made here. I see that requests have been made about trials. Please clarify, at the dispute resolution noticeboard, whether those are requests to create new sections, or to create new articles. I intend to be resolving the controversy over the inclusion of the 2013 Panorama (TV series) episode with a Request for Comments and would like to know whether we need any other requests for comments. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Any editors who have issues about this article but have not addressed them yet at the dispute resolution noticeboard are invited to add themselves as parties and to raise their issues. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, two tags were applied to this article. One was an NPOV tag, questioning its neutrality. That tag will remain until the neutrality is resolved, probably by the RFC process. However, the other was a tag saying that this article fails to distinguish fact from fiction, and should be rewritten according to the fiction guidelines. Since this article is fact, that is the wrong tag. I will be removing it when the article comes off page protection. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Please do not make any controversial edits to this article after it comes off page protection. (Minor edits, such as correction of typos, are fine.) Take those requests to the dispute resolution noticeboard so that we can address them by moderated discussion. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, apologies if I have misunderstood your direction. I am new to Wikipedia and was careful to act in a way that I thought was totally in line with your request to not make controversial edits. I interpreted your comments to mean that I should use the DRN if I was proposing new articles being created for the trials of Mngeni and Qwabe. That was not my intent at all, so I did not see anything controversial about simply creating headings on the existing page since the page had come off edit protection. I did not edit the Panorama section content, except to move it into the "Media Coverage" heading.
With the exception of one single edit, I don't believe any of my edits are/were controversial. They merely state facts of the case and the Court's findings and conclusions. The only edit that was controversial was the amendment to the opening paragraph of the article (that Lane99 has already reversed). My stated reason for editing this paragraph is that this line is so grossly misleading and deceptive that I feel that the matter should be discussed and resolved on the Talk page first, before permitting it to sit even another day on the main page. It directly contradicts the findings of the Western Cape High Court. Furthermore it parrots the false misleading propaganda that continues to be pumped out by fringe groups who do not accept the court's judgement and continue to attempt to paint Mr Dewani as guilty, despite overwhelming evidence and am emphatic Court Judgement that cleared him of all involvement. I would imagine that Wikipedia is not a tool that is suited to such a purpose? Dewanifacts ( talk) 07:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for cooperating with the moderated discussion process.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, thanks I will read those guides. I'm still a bit unclear as to how future edits should be made. this is what I understand from your comments.1. Post suggested amendment to TALK page. 2. Wait for comment from others. 3. If no-one objects, then I am free to go ahead and make the edits. If others object, then we to and fro and aim to come to agreement on whether some/all of the proposed edits should be made to the page. Once agreement reach, I make the edits. If agreement cannot be reached, then I should post the matter on the DRN. If that fails to resolve dispute, then attempt an RFC. Is this an accurate summation of the process? So no edits aside from minor ones can ever be made straight into the article? Dewanifacts ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Nick Cooper above. The opening paragraph should not be the place to push a certain narrative which has since been tested and rejected elsewhere. That is far from neutral and highly misleading. It implies that Shrien Dewani was responsible for his wife's murder. Readers would then have to scroll right down to the bottom sections to discover that he was is fact completely exonerated of any wrongdoing and did not have a case to answer on those charges. Why try and shoe-horn in an erroneous finding of the court in S V Mngeni into the opening paragraph summary and state it like it is a fact? I think the motivations to do so speak for themselves. To avoid confusion the finding of the court in S v Mngeni should simply be noted in the Trial of Xolile Mngeni section which would also be the correct place to reference the Mngeni judgement currently at footnote [1]. In the same way that the conclusions of the court in S v Dewani should be in the Trial of Shrien Dewani section. Surely that would be a neutral way of presenting the very different findings of the courts in the respective trials. The Mngeni judgement alone is not an accurate, or current, determination of the fate of Anni Dewani and Wikipedia shouldn't be representing it as such. Can we reach consensus to implement the above suggestion as being a neutral representation of the situation? -- St.Barbra ( talk) 17:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Draft RFC: Validity of Statement About Murder for Hire
I am about to post the following RFC:
Is the statement that the murder of Anna Dewani was found to be a murder for hire acceptable to be presented as neutral point of view in the voice of Wikipedia?
I am willing to change the wording of how the RFC is stated if there are suggestions that changes would improve its neutrality. I am also willing to add more than two options, as to how to present the murder-for-hire theory.
However, in the absence of other comments, this RFC will be posted with 36 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
“ | Before testifying in the Mngeni trial, key witness Monde Mbolombo read out a prepared statement confessing to lying in his two previous affidavits and promised to tell the truth when testifying.
On 19 November 2012, Mngeni was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in jail. The court accepted Qwabe and Mbolombo's version of events claiming that the crime was a contract killing. Mngeni was ruled to have been the person who shot Anni Dewani [1]. The findings of this court were superceded by the judgement in the later trial of Shrien Dewani, where the court found that the earlier determinations had been made on the basis of flawed forensics [2], and perjury of the two key witnesses Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Monde Mbolombo [3] [4] In July 2014, it was confirmed that a medical parole application had been made for Mngeni who was terminally ill with a brain tumour. [5] [6] He was denied parole, [7] and died in jail on 18 October 2014. [8] [9] [10] |
” |
A few comments above, I suggested that for the sake of completeness the court's acceptance of the contract killing story in the the S v Mngeni trial should be mentioned in the Mngeni trial section. The suggested wording places that finding in the appropriate context with the appropriate weight and I believe stays well within BLP policy. Is there any objection to this proposed edit? If not, then someone should go ahead and make it. That should forever put to bed the "murder for hire" issue. Dewanifacts ( talk) 18:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Samsara A rogue editor (Advocate BG) is making changes to this article that defy consensus. What is the process to warn this editor against the approach being taken and revert the edits until consensus has been gained? Dewanifacts ( talk) 19:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Advocate BG You are attempting to insert material that constitutes a grave WP:BLP violation into the lede paragraph. If you want to propose changes, do so on this talk page and once consensus has been achieved you will be most welcome to make the amendments to the article. Consensus does not have to be unanimous, but the thrust of the views put forward by the various editors taking part need to be in alignment. You will be reported for sanctions if you continue to attempt to insert libellous material into the article. You appear to have only created a Wikipedia account today. Good faith is assumed however if your very first action upon joining Wikipedia is to start making controversial article edits (that violate WP:BLP) you can expect to be treated rather harshly by other editors. Dewanifacts ( talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Missing pipe in: |work=
(
help)
I have explicitly placed this page under BLP discretionary sanctions. New editors are reminded that BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and taking up the positions of topic-banned editors may result in blocks. Editing the article against consensus may also result in blocks. Experienced editors can help out by placing discretionary sanctions notices on new editors' talk pages and notifying admins if problems persist. Bishonen and myself are familiar with the situation so you may want to approach us first. Please provide diffs if you do. -- NeilN talk to me 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to thank admins User:Bishonen and User:NeilN for taking action to deal with this mess. I became aware of this article and its controversy in August 2015, when it came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I tried to mediate it, but had to fail the mediation, because editors continued editing the article while I was trying to conduct moderated discussion. It doesn't appear to have improved in the past months. The conduct of the pro-guilt faction (trying to imply that the Shrien Dewani needs to be retried, or whatever) is appalling. They aren't the only editors behaving badly, just the worst ones. The appearance of new recruited anti-Dewani editors is suggestive of sockpuppetry. I would suggest that it may be appropriate to impose a 30-day/500-edit restriction on the article and this talk page. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I have requested a legal commentary at WP:WikiProject Law from a common-law lawyer as to whether there really was a judicial finding that the murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. It is true that a court accepted a confession that the murder was a murder for hire, but the subsequent trial found that the confession contained lies. It is my understanding that common-law courts, unlike civil-law courts, do not make findings of fact sua sponte, because common law is adversarial, and a confession is not an adversary proceeding, so gives rise to no findings. (Civil law courts may conduct investigations, but a common law court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defendant.) The only adversarial proceeding, and therefore the only proceeding that found facts, was the trial of Shrien Dewani, which found that the criminals lied. (Most of the editors at that project who are lawyers are probably common-law lawyers, since most Anglophone countries are common-law countries, although it is true that there could be English-fluent European civil lawyers at that project.) In any case, I have requested a legal analysis, which, if it is as I think it will be, will further establish that the sockpuppets are posting nonsense. Once again, thanks to User:Bishonen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing RfC opened by blocked sockpuppet. Please don't add anything more to this section. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"It is clear to me the "Murder of Anni Dewani" article (as it appears on December 5, 2015) omits or downplays important facts about the murder, and is written from a non-neutral and partisan point of view." Two questions: (1) Yes or no, do you agree with the above statement? (2) If you answered yes to question 1: yes or no, do you further agree the current (as of December 5) lede section is particularly biased and should be replaced by the lede section written by Advocate BG (as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&oldid=693109604)? Noanon ( talk) 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Going back to the top of this section, the answer to both questions is yes. Everyone who knows about the murder conspiracy can see that, and increasingly have voiced their opinion in this section. Wikipedia should be ashamed of using their trusted platform as a Trojan Horse for a insidious PR campaign for the man who was charged with being the brains behind the murder conspiracy. ForbesHighland ( talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I fully agree with both questions. 86.185.240.77 ( talk) 06:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I agree that the answer to both questions is yes; this article is biased.
Bishonen Samsara Robert McClenon Lane99 has now defied his topic ban yet again and edited the Article to reinstate the false information that is totally against consensus and constitutes a flagrant BLP violation. There is no doubt whatsoever that "AHindocha" is actually a sock of Lane99's. AHindocha has made a flurry of edits to get past the 10-edit semi protection filter, and surprise surprise - those edits just so happen to have been made to articles that relate to pet murder obsessions of Lane99's - Darlie Routier, Ryan Fergusen and the Dewani matter. This can be verified by taking a look at Lane99's twitter account - @perugiamurderfi. Amazingly - these are also the exact same articles edited by "Forbeshighland" - yet another of Lane99's socks who was born a few week ago and swiftly banned. This article needs to be protected and Lane99 and his socks need to be blocked from editing indefinitely. Dewanifacts ( talk) 08:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Someone may also want to take some type of action due to the sockpuppet's username "AHindocha". Clearly this is a distasteful attempt to impersonate or pretend to be a family member of the deceased person Anni Dewani (nee Hindocha), whose brother's name happens to be Anish. It would seem that it violates Wiki username policy. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Username_policy Dewanifacts ( talk) 08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree this Wiki article is extremely biased and non-neutral. And the edit written by Advocate BG should be restored. I am surprised Wikipedia is permitting it's pages to be used by a PR agent with an agenda."tildes" "tildes" "tildes" Qween1991 ( talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Some statistics: I have to go back to 19 October 2015 to see an IP editing this talkpage without being an obvious sock. Ever since Lane99 was topic banned on 11 November, there has been an influx of disruptive IPs and brand new SPAs; there were none before that point in time. Conclusion: I'm going to semiprotect this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
The article does not seem to say what led the police to arrest the suspects – i.e., what led them to arrest and interrogate Mngeni, Qwabe, and Mbolombo. Is that known? That seems like a pretty significant gap in the content of the article. — BarrelProof ( talk) 02:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).References
Bromley86 You have added a number of "where" tags to the Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#Investigation:_sequence_of_arrests_and_confessions section. What information are you looking for? If you provide some specifics I would be happy to try to help. At this stage I'm not sure what the "where" tags mean. Dewanifacts ( talk) 11:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed WORKING DRAFT TO IMPROVE CITATIONS IN SECTION: Investigation: sequence of arrests and confessions
|
---|
As a result of a palm print found on the abandoned taxi, Xolile Mngeni was arrested on Tuesday 16 November 2010, [1] and made a videotaped confession in the presence of Captain Jonker of the South African Police Service. In his confession, Mngeni admitted involvement in a hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation [2]. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims and said Qwabe shot Anni Dewani during a struggle for her handbag. [3] Mziwamadoda Qwabe was arrested at around 01:00 on Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of a tip-off from a trusted township informant [4] in his local area. After initial denials, Qwabe was allowed to consult with arrested co-conspirators Mbolombo and Mngeni, and subsequently admitted involvement in the hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims [5]. He changed his story during an interview recorded at 17:21 that day, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. [6] Monde Mbolombo was arrested in the early hours of Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of Qwabe providing his name to the police. After initially denying involvement, Mbolombo made a recorded confession at 16:30, admitting arranging a hijacking and armed robbery operation. The confession did not mention a planned murder or Shrien Dewani's involvement. [7]. The following day, Mbolombo changed his story, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. [8] Zola Tongo reported the hijacking to a police station in Gugulethu after he was ejected from the vehicle, and made a statement saying he was an unknowing victim. [9] [10] On 17 November, Tongo gave a statement to Officer Hendrikse of the SAPS again saying he was an innocent victim. [11] The following day, Tongo appointed attorney William De Grass. On Saturday 20 November, Tongo surrendered to police and said the operation was a planned murder staged to look like a random hijack, at the behest of Shrien Dewani. [12] Dewanifacts ( talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC) References
|
Added citation to above working refinement of section Dewanifacts ( talk) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Collapsed working refinement of section, in interest of tidyness. Dewanifacts ( talk) 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)