Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Murder of Meredith Kercher |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 28 July 2011 |
Requesting party | brmull |
Parties involved | LedRush; CodyJoeBibby; Berean_Hunter |
Mediator(s) | Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC) |
Comment | Closing, encouraging discussion to continue on talk page. |
The list of the users involved. For example:
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:
The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, [1] dead link coverage in the news media [2] page needed [3] and the conduct of the police investigation [4] [5] and prosecutor. [5]
The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."
Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. But I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page.
I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:
The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, [6] and aspects of the case are controversial. [5]
I'm willing to work with the other editors, but they insist that nothing be changed.
We just talk past each other. I make a change and I get reverted. I ask for comment and I get vague feedback. I try to decipher the objection on my own, and make a different change, but get the same result.
The case received international coverage in the media, who described aspects of the case as controversial. In particular, concerns were raised over the validity of the convictions (specify who of) and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor. (or "state" as in those in charge of prosecuting the defendants, which could include the police and lawyers, as they are working towards one goal, conviction). |
The case has received international coverage in the media, who has described the case as controversial and raised (issues/concerns/questions/criticisms) over the validity of the convictions (specify who of) and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor. (or "state" as in those in charge of prosecuting the defendants, which could include the police and lawyers, as they are working towards one goal, conviction). |
This could work a little bit better. Clarifying who raised the concerns or use a different wording, such as I've mentioned above might work. Let's discuss it and play around with it until we reach something that we can all work with. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Please correct the name of this project page. The victim is Meredith Kercher. I'd do the move, but it may mess some other things up. Glrx ( talk) 01:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This user wants to change the article based on a strong POV that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and the case is uncontroversial. The editors on the talk page have listened to his proposals in good faith, but they merely lack RSs (and he mistakes what the RSs actually say). In the instant case, he wants to change language in the lede which was the result of much negotiation. All editors agreed that the case was highly controversial, but the specific aspects required more sourcing. The reason not every statement has a source in the lede is because there are plenty of sources in the article to back up the statements. Please see the following comments from and links from the talk page:
The filer of this simply cannot accept consensus that doesn't favor him, and he has garnered no support for his positions. I believe he should be blocked (yet again) from editing this article if he continues his disruptive actions. LedRush ( talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Response to Steven Zhang. 1. The language currently in the lede is not just the editors' opinion, as you suggest. It is clearly and unequivocably supported by dozens of reliable sources. 2. Your suggestion is largely ok, but we cannot state that merely "aspects" of the case are controversial when so many sources say that the case itself is controversial. It is misleading and dishonest, in my opinion. LedRush ( talk) 21:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, it seems to soft sell the amount of media coverage in two ways. One, it is stated in the past tense despite the fact that the case still gets front page coverage on newspapers' websites. Two, it just says that the case received international coverage. There are books (like the one I mention above) that delve into the question why this case has received such intense coverage. It has been described as the case of the century (21st) and the case of the decade. Why should we soft sell this so much?
Also, as I've said above, the article itself dedicates much time and sources to describing the questions about the convictions, prosecutor/police conduct, etc. LedRush ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) And seeing as we devote a whole section to the media attention (and criticism of it), why would would take that out of the lede? LedRush ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Steven. But you didn't do that. The RSs say that the case is controversial. You've decided to change what they say and say that RSs say aspects are controversial. Also, I think your premise is wrong. When RSs make statements of fact, we don't usually ascribe them. However, I've compromised before on this point, and would again, if we merely ascribed what they said accurately. LedRush ( talk) 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Steven, seeing as I have pointed to long discussions that ended in a compromise, and I have just explicitly said I would compromise, your pointing to the policies seems unnecessarily antagonistic and misguided. Furthermore, nothing in those policies seems to excuse the seemingly deliberate distortion of sources that you are advocating with your proposal.
We have many more sources that call the entire trial (or the case) controversial than call one aspect of it controversial. Furthermore, the existing language is more accurate as many sources point to issues with certain aspects of the case (not just calling it controversial). LedRush ( talk) 04:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Brmull- your offering misstates the nature of the controversies (what is a media controversy?) and is generally non-responsive.
@ Steven - your language is not bad. I think that it loses the focus on the media attention in UK, Italy and US (where it still gets a ton of press, unlike in the rest of the world) and it loses the extent of the controversy. I prefer the current, highly negotiated, well sourced, and consensus language. However, yours isn't a bad per se, it's just inferior to the existing language. This is largely a useless exercise as we need to get the consensus of the editors on the other article. Seeing as they have already come to a different consensus and aren't involved here, what's the point. LedRush ( talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
While I believe the statement that's the subject of this request is factually accurate, I disagree with the statement's inclusion in the lead. To me, this is a rather clear NPOV issue. Reading an incomplete list of reasons that the case has been controversial is not essential to understanding the article's subject. Townlake ( talk) 06:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate LedRush taking the time to explain his position. He is incorrect on a number of points:
Shouts of "Assassina Americana!" rang across the cobbled streets in the historic center of Perugia on Friday night, as journalists and citizens jostled to watch a midnight court session that completed the controversial murder trial of American college student Amanda Knox.
The case has received international media coverage, particularly in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Media controversies include the appropriateness of Sollecito's and Knox's convictions, the conduct of the prosecutor and the police investigation, involvement in the case by politicians, and violations or alleged violations of Italian defamation laws, among other things. |
Brmull ( talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I went to the discussion page and got totally confused. Both this and the discussion page dont mention where new users can post comments so i will post mine here
1. I strongly feel that Wikpedia should not be used to report any controversies in media or otherwise. Thats not the purpose of this site and I strongly suggest removal of any information that will sensationalise this murder.
2. Sticking to the facts as they stand should be enough
0police ( talk) 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Dempsey
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
Article | Murder of Meredith Kercher |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 28 July 2011 |
Requesting party | brmull |
Parties involved | LedRush; CodyJoeBibby; Berean_Hunter |
Mediator(s) | Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC) |
Comment | Closing, encouraging discussion to continue on talk page. |
The list of the users involved. For example:
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
This dispute centers on a statement in the lede of the MoMK article that I and some other editors don't believe is properly sourced or NPOV. The paragraph in question is:
The case has received much media attention in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has been widely described as controversial, with questions raised over the validity of the convictions, [1] dead link coverage in the news media [2] page needed [3] and the conduct of the police investigation [4] [5] and prosecutor. [5]
The first sentence is unsourced, and the word "much" is subjective. However, the major problem is the second sentence. The word "It" suggests that the entirety of the case is controversial which is untrue. The phrase "widely described as controversial" exists in no source; it is a subjective assessment by editors based largely on U.S. media coverage. In my view it is WP:WEASEL, not least because the sentence goes on to list four "questionable" areas which just happen to be defence talking-points. It's a lawyerly way of saying, "Almost everyone thinks the defendants are being railroaded."
Other editors have made comments about the problematic nature of this paragraph. But I've not been able to work with the three who are reverting the article most of the time. I believe it's important to get this right because it is the lede in a highly-trafficked article and in a sense it sets the editorial standard for the whole page.
I would like to replace the original paragraph with the following sourced text:
The trials have received media coverage around the world, particularly in Italy, Britain and the United States, [6] and aspects of the case are controversial. [5]
I'm willing to work with the other editors, but they insist that nothing be changed.
We just talk past each other. I make a change and I get reverted. I ask for comment and I get vague feedback. I try to decipher the objection on my own, and make a different change, but get the same result.
The case received international coverage in the media, who described aspects of the case as controversial. In particular, concerns were raised over the validity of the convictions (specify who of) and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor. (or "state" as in those in charge of prosecuting the defendants, which could include the police and lawyers, as they are working towards one goal, conviction). |
The case has received international coverage in the media, who has described the case as controversial and raised (issues/concerns/questions/criticisms) over the validity of the convictions (specify who of) and the conduct of the police investigation and prosecutor. (or "state" as in those in charge of prosecuting the defendants, which could include the police and lawyers, as they are working towards one goal, conviction). |
This could work a little bit better. Clarifying who raised the concerns or use a different wording, such as I've mentioned above might work. Let's discuss it and play around with it until we reach something that we can all work with. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Please correct the name of this project page. The victim is Meredith Kercher. I'd do the move, but it may mess some other things up. Glrx ( talk) 01:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
This user wants to change the article based on a strong POV that Knox and Sollecito are guilty and the case is uncontroversial. The editors on the talk page have listened to his proposals in good faith, but they merely lack RSs (and he mistakes what the RSs actually say). In the instant case, he wants to change language in the lede which was the result of much negotiation. All editors agreed that the case was highly controversial, but the specific aspects required more sourcing. The reason not every statement has a source in the lede is because there are plenty of sources in the article to back up the statements. Please see the following comments from and links from the talk page:
The filer of this simply cannot accept consensus that doesn't favor him, and he has garnered no support for his positions. I believe he should be blocked (yet again) from editing this article if he continues his disruptive actions. LedRush ( talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Response to Steven Zhang. 1. The language currently in the lede is not just the editors' opinion, as you suggest. It is clearly and unequivocably supported by dozens of reliable sources. 2. Your suggestion is largely ok, but we cannot state that merely "aspects" of the case are controversial when so many sources say that the case itself is controversial. It is misleading and dishonest, in my opinion. LedRush ( talk) 21:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Furthermore, it seems to soft sell the amount of media coverage in two ways. One, it is stated in the past tense despite the fact that the case still gets front page coverage on newspapers' websites. Two, it just says that the case received international coverage. There are books (like the one I mention above) that delve into the question why this case has received such intense coverage. It has been described as the case of the century (21st) and the case of the decade. Why should we soft sell this so much?
Also, as I've said above, the article itself dedicates much time and sources to describing the questions about the convictions, prosecutor/police conduct, etc. LedRush ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC) And seeing as we devote a whole section to the media attention (and criticism of it), why would would take that out of the lede? LedRush ( talk) 21:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Steven. But you didn't do that. The RSs say that the case is controversial. You've decided to change what they say and say that RSs say aspects are controversial. Also, I think your premise is wrong. When RSs make statements of fact, we don't usually ascribe them. However, I've compromised before on this point, and would again, if we merely ascribed what they said accurately. LedRush ( talk) 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
@Steven, seeing as I have pointed to long discussions that ended in a compromise, and I have just explicitly said I would compromise, your pointing to the policies seems unnecessarily antagonistic and misguided. Furthermore, nothing in those policies seems to excuse the seemingly deliberate distortion of sources that you are advocating with your proposal.
We have many more sources that call the entire trial (or the case) controversial than call one aspect of it controversial. Furthermore, the existing language is more accurate as many sources point to issues with certain aspects of the case (not just calling it controversial). LedRush ( talk) 04:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Brmull- your offering misstates the nature of the controversies (what is a media controversy?) and is generally non-responsive.
@ Steven - your language is not bad. I think that it loses the focus on the media attention in UK, Italy and US (where it still gets a ton of press, unlike in the rest of the world) and it loses the extent of the controversy. I prefer the current, highly negotiated, well sourced, and consensus language. However, yours isn't a bad per se, it's just inferior to the existing language. This is largely a useless exercise as we need to get the consensus of the editors on the other article. Seeing as they have already come to a different consensus and aren't involved here, what's the point. LedRush ( talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
While I believe the statement that's the subject of this request is factually accurate, I disagree with the statement's inclusion in the lead. To me, this is a rather clear NPOV issue. Reading an incomplete list of reasons that the case has been controversial is not essential to understanding the article's subject. Townlake ( talk) 06:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate LedRush taking the time to explain his position. He is incorrect on a number of points:
Shouts of "Assassina Americana!" rang across the cobbled streets in the historic center of Perugia on Friday night, as journalists and citizens jostled to watch a midnight court session that completed the controversial murder trial of American college student Amanda Knox.
The case has received international media coverage, particularly in Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. Media controversies include the appropriateness of Sollecito's and Knox's convictions, the conduct of the prosecutor and the police investigation, involvement in the case by politicians, and violations or alleged violations of Italian defamation laws, among other things. |
Brmull ( talk) 01:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I went to the discussion page and got totally confused. Both this and the discussion page dont mention where new users can post comments so i will post mine here
1. I strongly feel that Wikpedia should not be used to report any controversies in media or otherwise. Thats not the purpose of this site and I strongly suggest removal of any information that will sensationalise this murder.
2. Sticking to the facts as they stand should be enough
0police ( talk) 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Dempsey
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).