Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Chandra Levy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Re: removal of justiceforchandra.com external reference

hi racepacket, it's your site or at least you're a well established editor of it and can do what you want, but my site that you removed has the most comprehensive information on Chandra Levy on the web. I see for example you keep links to news timelines but we actually have all the information on those events.

Someone once edited in a link to chapter "On Her Computer" in my online book about Chandra, which was cool, and then an edit a few years later changed it to the site homepage, which was cool, but I don't think the information just became irrelevant because of the conviction. In fact it's pretty important for people to be able to see the facts. Anything beyond your article, it's the only comprehensive information on the web.

Could you consider re-instating the link? It's not life or death, most people come in through search engines, but it is a very informative site on a controversial subject.

thanks Ralphdaugherty (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

If the website officially represented the Levy family, I suppose it would not be out of place. However, I notice that the links at the very top of the page are promoting the sale of the book Murder on a Horse Trail that Ralph Daugherty (I presume you?) has written. If so, this may pose a problem with conflict of interest guidelines. KimChee (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
hi kimchee, yes, I am the author, and I published Murder on a Horse Trail online on the site in 2005. The links on the home page are to the book contents and one explaining why I published it online. I wanted to get the information to the public. A hard copy can be purchased from online book sources but that is only rarely done.
The link here for many years was to chapter "On Her Computer" made by someone with an interest in the Joyce Chiang case and Chandra Levy case, I don't know who, I didn't check the editing history, but was changed a couple of years ago to the site home page in a standardization edit. The site www.justiceforchandra.com contains the only comprehensive collection of analysis of the case on the web. It is owned by me and not affiliated with the Levy family.
The online publishing of Murder on a Horse Trail represents the highest ideals of the free dissemination of information that Wikipedia represents. It does not cost me that much to have the site hosted, but there is no advertising or other commercial affiliations and the sales of the book that occurred just paid for publishing it.
It's interesting that I ran across a comment on the web last night about a student using it along with the Washington Post series for a class project. That's what the site is there for, educational.
A link to the table of contents (the link I have on the home page) of Murder on a Horse Trail: The Disappearance of Chandra Levy would be fine instead if that's more helpful. [1]
thanks
Ralphdaugherty (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I commend you for being forthright about this. I read through the Google preview and found it to be fairly interesting. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to include the listing for the book itself under Further reading. Any reader intent on locating a hard copy should have no problem doing so on their own. KimChee (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response and kind words, kimchee, but I don't understand the last sentence. :) First, I agree Further reading may be most appropriate although it was External links because that's what it is, a link to a free publically available copy of Murder on a Horse Trail. I also have pictures, hand made maps, etc. we've added to help illustrate that I was not able to get into the book.
Your call is fine with me, but just to be clear, there is no need for a reader to find a hard copy which may be implied by Further reading (and is implied in your last sentence), rather than providing the external link to Murder on a Horse Trail, which is included on the home page of www.justiceforchandra.com that was removed. I don't care if the justiceforchandra.com link is restored, or replaced with a link to the contents of Murder on a Horse Trail [note 2 above], or a mention in Further reading, whatever suits you best for Wikipedia standards.
The full book is available to read with a click though. If you haven't read it, and because it comes up so prominently in searches I thought most who wanted to have looked at it, a bad assumption I guess, I hope you and anyone else interested in Chandra's case give it a read.
regards,Ralphdaugherty (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The comment about tracking down a hard copy was in reference to the Google preview only providing access to a portion of the book. An external link to an author/publisher site would be more appropriate on an article specifically about the book itself. If there has been third-party press coverage about the book, then a separate article may pass the threshold for notability like Finding Chandra. If any of the images on JusticeForChandra.com can be confirmed to be in the public domain, then perhaps they could also be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use in Wikipedia. KimChee (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for explanation. I will check with the picture takers.Ralphdaugherty (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
So, what is the concensus about linking to the online book? Racepacket (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion about this, but I think such a link would be more appropriate in the Further reading section rather than External links as this article is not specifically about that book. KimChee (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I found an article on the CNN website covering the origins of the book as well as a third party review, so I think a separate article for Murder on a Horse Trail has been justified. Official links related to the book have been moved over there. KimChee (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath

This first sentence of this section suggests it will go on to discuss the impact of the case:

Levy's death had a lasting impact, particularly due to the actions of Levy's parents and friends.

However it then goes on to talk about previous cases in some detail, and how they have impacted this case. Is all the following necessary? Can it be trimmed down to maybe focus more on the impact of this case...:

Levy's disappearance came after a number of other high-profile cases which created resources for missing young adults. For example, Levy's parents quickly turned for help to the Carole Sund-Carrington Memorial Reward Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Modesto that was established after three hikers were found slain in Yosemite National Park in 1999.[17] That foundation, which offered the Levys staff support and contributed towards a cash reward for information about Chandra's disappearance, was merged into the Laci & Conner Search and Rescue Fund in 2009.[77] In 1997, 18-year-old Kristen Modafferi mysteriously disappeared from North Carolina and her parents turned to their congresswoman for help when Kristen was deemed too old to be helped by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. As a result, Congress enacted "Kristen's Law" in October 2000, which established the National Center for Missing Adults (NCMA) within the U.S. Department of Justice to coordinate such missing person cases.[78]

--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One would expect this case, and all of the publicity that it attracted to have a larger impact. However, because a number of earlier cases prompted reform, there was less policy change and reform required by the time that the Levy case happened. Mrs. Levy did form a foundation with another victim's family, but it does not appear to have remained active. Racepacket (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Portions of the article have been rewritten to comply with an open CCI. KimChee (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Miniapolis 21:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Chandra Levy → ? – Should it be Disappearance of Chandra Levy or Death of Chandra Levy? Reading the whole article, her profile is very low, and the whole article is solely about investigation of her disappearance or death more than about Levy herself and her affair with the politician.relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC) George Ho (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose move - eeh No this article is about Chandra Levy she has becomed a notable figure. When it comes to her personal notability read WP:NTEMP.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Prefer Death of Chandra Levy. AIRcorn (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Change to Death of..--BabbaQ (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Relisting

  • Relisting comment: As of now there is consensus to move, but no consensus as to what title to move to as there are three different suggestions above. Please choose one and continue the discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Several of us have voiced coherent explanations as to why we oppose any move. So, can we trust that our reasons for opposing a move will be considered, before this discussion is closed? Geo Swan (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer "Disappearance of Chandra Levy". Eight years is a long time to be 'missing', and the coverage reflects that. I feel that her death is incidental. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 09:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, she was missing for only one year (May 2001 – May 2002), not eight. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • In any event, she was never notable, BLP1E applies; it was the circumstances surrounding her death that was notable, so the article definitely ought to cede the current namespace. I just feel that for the length of time the circumstances of her death were speculated upon, 'disappearance of' would be more appropriate; 'death of' would be my second preference. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. It is the height of pedantry to title this article anything other than Chandra Levy. She is notable not just for the disappearance, but also the affair (if not for the affair there probably would not be an article, as there are hundreds of missing people for which we have no article). Her name is commonly known by everyone who paid any attention to US news 12 years ago. The article is of course predominantly about the murder, affair and disappearance, but there is a section on her "life and background", as there should be. This article is about Chandra Levy, or at least everything that is known about her in reliable sources. And so it should be. May she rest in peace. --B2C 19:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Umm... Levy's dead (or still disappeared I don't trust autopsy reports sometimes.). Condit's denial and confession varies from reliable sources and Condit himself. Investigation of her disappearance led to suspicions about Condit, the suspect of her disapperance. Suspicions led to Condit's denial and confession. Then investigation led to her remains found. Because Condit is still living, WP:BLP may apply to info about involved living persons, even if Levy is dead. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what point you're making here. Only the title of this article is at issue here, not the content. --B2C 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
        • The quasi-notability of the affair with Condit is only a side issue, for it probably would never have surfaced had she not disappeared, but I'm speculating and so are you. Yes, I agree that if not for the affair there probably would not be an article. But it's one more element that made the case notable, but not the person. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 01:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is demeaning to a person to be only defined by their death. Article titles should also be simple, straightforward, and no need to explain notability in title. We don't title things "Warren G. Harding President," or Sex tape of Paris Hilton after all! Montanabw(talk) 23:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • To your logic, would Suicide of Tyler Clementi be a demeaning title? --George Ho (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That's different for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that his form of death was his personal choice, and his name is not nearly as well recognized as Chandra Levy is. But I would not be opposed to renaming that article (to just his name) as well. --B2C 00:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, I would agree that it is a very analogous case, though not filled with as much tabloid-fodder. Tyler Clementi also deserves his article to be named after him without qualifiers. People deserve their names, not to be labeled for one event of their life. Their whole life matters; even if they only are famous for one tragedy. The BIO1E standard is for people who are famous for one thing like George Holliday (witness), which was redirected to Rodney King. Here, we all appear to basically agree that Levy is notable and worthy of a stand-alone article, not just a redirect, and thus, the article should remain with her own name. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't know... Even I don't even know Clementi very well other than as closeted and vulnerable and an aspiring violinist. Information of his life is not very predominant, and he didn't have a notable career. Back to Levy; she had a career, but she did not publish her own works to the public. Even she never made televised and public appearances as a celebrity. You can't be named exactly after yourself for just death, disappearance, and scandal. Even you can't be named exactly after yourself for just suicide, video, college, and having a selfish, vindictive dorm mate. As I said below, Lewinsky proved herself to be notable (and brave) by doing things for herself, while other two... I won't go there. --George Ho (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
            • But that is the kind of value judgement we need to avoid. If notability is sufficient for a WP article, then that article title should be that person's name. Period. If they are not notable, then they don't need a wikipedia article at all. "Notability" is broader than accomplishments, and accomplishments can be pretty dubious; for example, if "Lawnchair Larry" died, would he get a WP article, or one titled Death of Lawnchair Larry? Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Straw man argument, eh? As for the "naming" issue in general, let's wait until this discussion is closed. Therefore, we can take this to WT:BIO, WT:N or WP:VPP. Back to the topic and your original argument; defining Levy by only death... what's wrong with that other than as "demeaning"? Maybe we can read WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E again to figure whether renaming should happen... or not. --George Ho (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not a WP:BLP1E situation. Levy is known for her disappearance, the affair with Condit, the false accusations of Condit, the murder, and some aspects of her life which were covered in reliable sources and are covered in this article accordingly. A BLP1E situation is when there is a single event of relatively short duration, and reliable sources cover the person in question only in conjunction with that one event. This is not the case for Levy. RS are replete with stories about her disappearance, her affair, the trial about her murder, etc. Let's not botch this one. That said, I'm done here. --B2C 00:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, that would be WP:BIO1E... --BDD (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, one more. No, it's not BIO1E. This article is not about one event, nor should it be. It's about ALL the notable events related to Levy: her disappearance, the Condit affair, suspicions and political ramifications, the discovery of her body, the finding of her her killer, the trial, etc. There is no consensus about how to title "this one event" because it's NOT one event. It's about a person, Chandra Levy. Now I'm done. --B2C 02:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
She became notable only because she was killed. The investigation of her disappearance is what led to the cloud of suspicion around Condit and the revelation of their affair. The details of her life only became interesting to the general public because she was killed under circumstances that cast suspicion on a noteworthy person (a congressman). Before she was killed, she seems to have been a non-noteworthy student and intern (and after she was killed, she obviously didn't go on to do anything noteworthy later). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with B2C on this one. Many people only turn out to have many notable things discovered about them after they die, how about Emily Dickenson? Shall we retitle her bio Poetry of Emily Dickenson published posthumously just because it was only after she died and they found all her stuff in a drawer? WP:BIO1E is for determining if an article should be written at all, and that is NOT what is being discussed here. And frankly, yes, I'd agree that ALL of these sorts of articles need to be just named after the person. It's demeaning and insulting to their personhood and to their family's memories to define their whole life only by what happened to make news. The person either passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO1E and gets an article, or they don't. If they do, it deserves to simply be named after them. It's an issue of human dignity and respect. Montanabw(talk) 21:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Why comparing Emily Dickinson to lesser-known Chandra Levy? Why not Monica Lewinsky? She appeared in Saturday Night Live, while... Levy did not make appearances herself because she disappeared... and then died. --George Ho (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, if she is notable enough to have an article, then it deserves simply to be named with her name and nothing more. If she is not, then we have List of unusual deaths. Montanabw(talk) 23:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • A set of literary works is not "one event", and Dickenson is known for her poetry, not for how it was discovered (something I wasn't even aware of until mentioned above). There is no policy saying that articles involving authors should generally be about what the author wrote rather than about the author who wrote them. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reader trying to find this article will have trouble if the title remains "Chandra Levy". "Chandra Levy" is the shortest possible name to give the article, and there is no competition for this title. No matter what wording is used for death/murder/disappearance/affair, the part about "Chandra Levy" will lead them straight here.
    Levy's career was borderline notable on its own but her affair with Condit pushed her into true notability. The media flurry surrounding the disappearance and death are, of course, more notable situations, unfortunately. I see no need to saddle this article with a name that focuses on only one of several important aspects of Levy's life and death, when affair and disappearance and death/murder are all critical pieces. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Any other people known for just "affair" and disappearance and/or death? --George Ho (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
      Undoubtably, but I'm not going to go digging now. Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • To me, it seems like several of the comments in opposition here seem to basically be disagreeing with the WP:BIO1E policy. The wisdom of the policy is a broader topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, I take issue with BIO1E policy, in that the most pertinent, accurate and brief name is always going to be Person's name rather than Significant event related to Person. This particular case is more awkward because of the question of whether Levy was most famous for her disappearance, for her revealed affair, or for her murder. The answer to that is ignore the silly rules when they are at their most awkward. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
        Not really, while I agree with Binksternet that people should have articles with just their own name, I don't think BPO1E applies at all here, this is a renaming issue, not a creation issue. Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I really thought that her affair with Condit was reduced to just one paragraph or one section. After reading it again, Condit's affair is mentioned thereafter, and "Media Coverage" section discusses the way that they cover the investigation and Condit. Nevertheless, the whole investigation about her disappearance and then death predominates, and her affair is nothing more than a movie's subplot. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
        • By the way, the affair could have hypothetically been Condit's motive to kill, but Condit is not an actual killer, according to evidence and Condit himself. --George Ho (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Because this RfC has been relisted I want to emphasize that continued argument for renaming has not convinced me. Levy was notable for two separate things: affair with politician and disappearance/death. Her career details almost cross into notability. Thus a rename of the article would be wrong; it would emphasize one aspect at the expense of the other. "Chandra Levy" is perfectly suitable and appropriately brief as an article name. I always gravitate toward the shortest possible article name, and this case is exemplary. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Previously, I argued that her career is not that big to triumph profession careers. Reading "Life and Background" again, she had just three internships and showed potential, and she was close to receiving Master's Degree. Well, at least she gets paid for doing hard work, but even her internships... What am I saying? Whether or not her career did not triumph other careers, she had potential, but that was discovered publicly during her disappearance. --George Ho (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Death of Chandra Levy per WP:BLP1E. Her notability derives solely from dying. She "disappeared" because she was dead. Her affair was discussed because she was dead. Having said that, Disappearance and death of Chandra Levy is OK if others prefer it. —  AjaxSmack  05:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Disappearance of Chandra Levy slightly over Death of Chandra Levy. While I agree with Ajax above that her disappearance was due to her as yet unknown death, it was her disappearance which received the bulk of media attention, and it was only later found that her disappearance was due to her death. B2C's comments are not entirely offbase, but the entirety of her life only became notable because of her death/disappearance, and even then to date has basically only been in effect sub-topics discussed because of the single notable event, her disappearance. Now, if, in time, there are for instance books or articles which substantively deal with her life aside from the matter of her death and disappearance, and I assume it is possible that the Condit affair may eventually gather such coverage, then maybe it might make sense to restore the article under her name then. But that is a bit of crystal-balling at this point, and we try not to do that. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    Continue to oppose on the grounds that either option is demeaning to the person's memory. Truly, how many articles on wiki ARE named this way? Seems like only the ones involving women or gay men, it seems, but am I wrong? Montanabw(talk) 20:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're probably wrong. Happens to the best of us. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention Schicklgruber. Seriously, check out all of pages starting with "Death of" or "Murder of". —  AjaxSmack  02:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I do notice that many of the "death of" articles are actual redirects to the main biography, however. We also have several where the "death of" is a spinoff from the main biography that also exists. So it's much more complicated than it looks. Seems to me VERY demeaning to a person to be defined only by their death, and painful to the families left behind. No matter how this debate turns out, it is, to me, extremely disrespectful and though I don't have the time or energy now to fight this battle, I think that there should be a broader policy discussion of this. Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sue how it's disrespectful. Levy is not eligible for an article at Wikipedia since she is not notable. And the text of this article is not about her life at all but a history, a report, about her disappearance, death, and the events surrounding it. We should not censor Wikipedia and allow the presence of potential aggrieved third parties to dictate an article title that does not represent the content of the article. —  AjaxSmack  23:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess people view things differently, but I would have thought it would be just as, if not more, disrespectful to have an article titled with a persons name that focused unduly on their death. By changing the title we essentially turn the topic of this article from being about her to being about the incident. Unfortunately we can't do that easily without mentioning her name. AIRcorn (talk)
  • Like it or not, much of this article is about Chandra Levy, and rightfully so, and properly supported by reliable sources. Sections like Chandra_Levy#Life_and_background, appropriate and properly supported, wouldn't even make sense if this article was retitled to "Death of ..." or "Disappearance of ...".

    This is one of the rare cases where the title matters. Not only is it disrespectful, but if you're going to go with a descriptive title, it should, you know, describe the topic of the article. The proposed titles do not do that, not for the content and scope of this article.

    If this article is moved, and no one else appeals the move, I will. --B2C 23:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  • If moved, then I must change heading levels (or rename sections). --George Ho (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    Then this is a proposal of an article content/scope change, not a mere title change. --B2C 04:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
    How does just one mere affair make a real-life person more highly or marginally notable than a fictional character? The whole prose content wouldn't be affected by a title change, would it? The whole says a lot more about the whole disappearance case than her activities. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's look at Petraeus scandal to see whether every involved person is independently notable from the whole topic... or not. --George Ho (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Her death was one event. The disappearance was caused by the death, so I can see saying that was not a separate event. But her affair with a Congressman was an entirely separate event. Either of these alone would probably not make her notable. But the combination did. In addition, the eventual finding of her body and the subsequent trial of her killer, so many years later, is all arguably separate events too, making her very notable. Countless articles, several books. The idea that we not have an article about someone (not just their death) who has had so much attention in reliable sources makes no sense whatsoever. The article is not about, and will not be about, just her death. It is and will always be about her and everything notable in RS about her. Any title other than Chandra Levy is plain wrong. This was true in the first version of this article when it was first created, over 10 years ago! [1]. For crying out loud, this isn't even a close one. --B2C 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, even passing the notability line doesn't make a title accurate forever. "Chandra Levy" is no exception. Combination of events don't make a title accurate, regardless of notability. To sum up, she is dead, and she couldn't admit the affair because she's dead. Or, to put another way, notability does not equate title accuracy. Even if she is "notable" to your definition, I wonder how her "notability" makes the title comprehensively accurate. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
To me, this is a classic example of the inherent, institutional sexism in wikipedia. She's female. If this were a similarly-situated straight white male, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Yes, I know there are some "death of" articles about straight white men, but here we are taking away the dignity of giving this person an article just named with her name. I think the entire policy stinks. If she's not notable, then why do we have this article at all? (My god, we must have thousands of articles about nonentities who played one season of professional cricket in Sri Lanka or something, none are titled "Cricket career of person X", which is the best analogy I can think of) NO ONE should have a biography titled "[Actions of]..." Either they are notable or they are not. If they are notable enough for a stand-alone article for whatever reason (life, death, tying their own shoes) then the article should be titled with their name and just their name. The only time a "death of" title is appropriate is for a spinoff where the person's biography already exists and a spinoff is needed due to additional content. If Chandra Levy is notable for her death, than clearly that becomes the focus of the article. For example, we have many articles about people infamous for a single act, say, Lee Harvey Oswald. No one cares if that person also played tiddly-winks in second grade or something. Montanabw(talk) 18:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Lee Oswald and Levy are different. Oswald also attempted to kill another man, believed in Marxism, served in the Marines, and had a poor childhood. Moreover, Oswald's life has been covered over the years. Meanwhile, Levy had a loving family, got good education and stuff, yet she made a mistake with a married man. --George Ho (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
George, have you read the article? It is about a person named Chandra Levy, hence the title is accurate.
  • Chandra Ann Levy (April 14, 1977 – c. May 1, 2001)
  • "...was an American intern..."
  • "who disappeared in "
  • "was presumed murdered after ..."
  • "intense media focus on the missing intern"
  • "Levy was born in ..."
  • "grew up in..."
  • "She attended ..."
  • "Her parents ... are ..."
  • "She attended San Francisco State University"
  • "... attending the University of Southern California"
  • etc etc etc.
The article is about Chandra Levy!!! We have countless numbers of biographical articles about persons, named after those persons, with much less information about them then we have here about Ms. Levy in this article. Here are the first five bios that pop up from SPECIAL:RANDOM, and all have less biographical information about their respective subjects than this article has about Levy: Walter Perez (actor), George Worthington (tennis), Denílson Lourenço, Jeff Grau, Stefano Pastrello. Of course, they are all men, so maybe Montana's speculation about sexism at play here is not so far afield. --B2C 22:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I did read her biography, and she is neither an actor, tennis player, or a sports player. Well, she was involved in politics, but her profession could not triumph acting, sports, or writing books or poetry. --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Irrelevant, Monica Lewinsky has her own article and she is pretty much notable for being "involved with politics" in a similar manner. She's just lucky to have avoided the tragic misfortune of Ms. Levy. The only standard relevant is WP:NOTABILITY, once there is an article that passes that threshold, if it is about a human being, that's the proper name for the article. Conversely, the fate of an inanimate object, such as The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, is a different matter entirely. Except that even the SS Edmund Fitzgerald has its own article, with the song as a spinoff, and this inanimate object is only notable for its Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, discussing comparisons with other topics ain't getting us anywhere. We have proven ourselves trying to change each other's viewpoints by rambling like crazy and falling into the sinkhole. I say that we shall give each other a truce and then move on. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Cop out. Discussions like this are not primarily about persuading each other. They are mostly about testing each other's arguments... to see if they hold up to scrutiny. Unless you're prepared to argue that Monica Lewinsky is incorrectly titled, and so irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF, you need to explain why your argument concludes this title needs to be changed, but doesn't apply to Monica Lewinsky. Otherwise, I call collapse (referring to the state of your argument and position, of course). --B2C 06:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
...Back on topic, this article is not always about Levy. It is about the investigation of her "disappearance" and leads. The investigation led to suspicions of Condit and then other suspects, including one on trial. It also led to discovery of her demise. The affair itself and her profile are bonuses, yet media speculated whether an affair is related to the investigation because Condit was a suspect and Levy still "disappeared". Oh, it also mentions Condit's affair with another woman besides Levy and his possible obstruction of justice. --George Ho (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
WP biographies naturally focus on the aspects of a person that made them notable in the first place. The bio of a person notable for their athletics focuses mostly on their athletics. So, the bio of a person notable for her disappearance, affair and death is going to focus on her disappearance, affair and death. It's still about her just as much as an athlete's bio is about the athlete, despite the content being mostly only about the persons athletic feats. That's no reason to name the article anything other than the name of the person! --B2C 08:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
How exactly about her? She has never done anything else substantial, like appearing on television in the flesh or giving interviews. She even didn't write a book about herself. --George Ho (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
George, you are starting to be unkind. Lots of people have articles on wiki who never gave an interview or wrote a book about themselves. This is argument for the sake of argument. We don't title articles about the cricket player who had one season for the Sri Lankan team with "short career of..." You are demeaning this woman by reducing her to only her fate. That, my friend, is sexism. But I'm tired of wasting my breath. It's just the same people going around and around... Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
-
No two people are the same. No two bios are the same. The reasons that make someone notable vary from person to person, from bio to bio. In each bio, what exactly about that person is covered in the article depends on the person and what reliable sources have written about that person. This article is no different in that respect. There are no characteristics of all bios that are required to make them bios. The subject does not have to appear on television in the flesh or otherwise. The subject is not required to have written a book about anything, including herself. They are only required to be sufficiently notable to have been covered in reliable sources, and this subject meets that requirement as well as many, and better than many, other WP bios. You can't invent hurdles that are not held up for any other articles and demand that this one meet them in order to be titled as it is. Yet that's what you're doing George. If you have an argument based on policies, guidelines and principles that apply to the titles of articles too, let's hear it. Otherwise, enough with the made-up rules already. --B2C 01:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I stand adamant to my proposal, but you guys beat me there on terms of policy and guidelines, but I'm not a sexist. Even "Suicide of..."/"Death of..." for low-profile victims are more deserving titles, but WP:CRITERIA is very vague to me. Calling "Chandra Levy" an accurate, precise title, to me, is demeaning to all the hard work that contributors have done to this article. I'm sure it's always about her disappearance or death. --George Ho (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose First, renaming is a bad idea, due to the principle of least astonishment. Second, some ill-advised contributor bloated this article up with an undiscussed merge and redirect of 18K of material from the perfectly adequate article on the murderer. Third, the people asserting this is a good idea based on WP:BLP1E seem to have overlooked that Ms Levy is not a living person. Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the editor's intent, I think it strengthens the case for the article describing an event rather than a person. Don't get too caught up on your third point. WP:BIO1E redirects to the same place, and several editors have referred to it. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree, whatever the stealth merger's intent, the action was IMO disruptive and counter-policy. It reflected a failure of imagination. A reader might look to information on Ingmar Guandique, because they were going through our articles on stranger murders. They would have no interest in the information on Levy, Condit. The article currently used an internal wiki-link to a subsection heading within the article itself.
Hello. This is not how wikilinks should be used. [[#Identification of the prime suspect|Ingmar Guandique]] This is a bad wikilink. It is a recipe for disaster. It looks like a legitimate wikilink to another article. Unlike the uni-directional links of of the world-wide web, legitimate wikilinks don't break. Our procedure for renaming an article leaves a redirect, so our links don't break. However, when an author chooses to construct a wikilink to a subsection within an article, that wikilink is just as vulnerable to breakage as regular html links. There is no warning to anyone changing the name of the target subsection that by doing to they will break a link. But it will break a link.
Regular, legitimate wikilinks show up via the "what links here" button. Illegitimate wikilinks to subsection heading DON'T show up via "what links here".
What I wanted my watchlist to advise me when the wikipedia had new information about Ingmar Guandique -- but I wasn't really interested in Levy or Condit? We used to have a perfectly satisfactory article on Guandique, the perfect target to put on my watchlist. After the stealth merge, putting the Chandra Levy article on my watchlist would curse me with a vast number of false positives.
We make extensive use of wikilinks to subsection heading in wikipedia space. But there are lots of people who will notice when careless editing breaks those links. The same does not hold true in article space and this technique should IMO never be used in article space.
I called this counter-policy. This kind of stealth merge is tantamount to a counter-policy stealth deletion. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Current title is very intuitive. Suggested new name isn't. Simplicity always beats "correctness". Peter Isotalo 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Then we should split the death/murder off into a separate article, and send Chandra Levy to AFD for deletion, to see if she passes notability or not, independent of her disappearance/death. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That would be nothing short of making a point. Peter Isotalo 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Not really, since the death information is known to be notable, and the other information hasn't been tested for separate notability. If a bio separate from the death is NN, it would still become a redirect to the death article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Which is exactly why this whole discussion is quite pointless. If you believe certain information should be removed, deal with that specifically. Changing the article name won't actually achieve anything. Peter Isotalo 18:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
      • To suggest that someone who gets almost 400,000 hits on Google, and over 5,000 hits in Google books, might not be notable is absurd. --B2C 19:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That doesn't mean they are not WP:1E notable. Disaster and crime victims frequently appear when discussing the disaster or crime. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Even if someone is 1E notable does not mean there should be no article about the person. The primary consideration in whether there should be a separate article is the weight of the role played by the person in question. Levy's role was huge, not only because she was the victim, but also because of the affair which brought the event much of its notability. This is also why there are so many hits for her. --B2C 22:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split info about Ingmar Guandique?

From what I've heard, the article about a suspect was merged into this article. Since the renaming request failed, maybe splitting information about Ingmar Guandique shouldn't be so bad. The article is too long, and the article should be mainly about her disappearance or her death more than about the suspect himself. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the article is too long at all. It's not nearly long enough to warrant a sub-article on this barely notable criminal. --B2C 15:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Chandra Levy and events involving her

NAC: Consensus is against moving or renaming this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There was no consensus last year to rename this article despite support votes. WP:BIO1E of WP:NCP guideline was used in previous discussion but was rebutted. Events involving Chandra Levy are disappearance and then death, worrying her family. Later, the press speculated an affair, so then-Representative Gary Condit got harassed by the press until he confessed the affair with the missing intern. I am unsure whether events or she is more notable than the other. The guideline says:

It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event. Similarly, a person may be generally famous, but only notable for only a single event.

She may have failed WP:ANYBIO because she hasn't won an award or done a recognized contribution to society, but whether she passes WP:BASIC and WP:notability is our concern. WP:NEVENTS may apply, but which is more notable, events or Chandra Levy herself? If I'm missing a policy or guideline, please provide a link to one. --George Ho (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Notable per WP:VICTIM & falls under WP:BIO1E, the event which is her disappearance, death, and investigation are definitely notable and meets WP:GNG. Coverage continued after her disappearance, therefore meets WP:PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know which part of BIO1E; can you refer it to me? --George Ho (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Do not move/rename here via RfC bot. I think the portion is: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Chandra Levy's affair with Gary Condit and the impact of her death not only on his political career but as a cautionary tale on future political affairs, the ultimate conviction of the suspect, the libel case Condit pursued against Dominick Dunne, has meant that this long past grew beyond 1Event. A quick look at the New York Times repository (here) of articles on the ripple effect of Chandra Levy's life and death is some demonstration of this. WP:GNG is easily met here: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."EBY (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Do not move/rename - a separate article for Chandra, like this one is warranted and should stay in its present form.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Do not move/rename For all the reasons mentioned listed above. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well done article on Chandra as it currently stands

A retrial of Guandique is now likely and many people will be viewing this article based on news coverage. I just reviewed and it is in excellent shape. Kudos to the writers / editors. I have had a comment or two in past about correctness but no issues now.

My only quibble is while factually accurate that Washington Post reported that an employer told them that Guandique didn't show up for work day Chandra disappeared, I have never seen any details about this employer, or Guandique's schedule with this employer, etc. I didn't see anything in trial coverage about this either. Of all the information, and there's a lot, this unsubstantiated claim is one of those things that make Guandique look guilty (along with grand jury testimony from his landlady a year later that his face was scratched around this time, but he he was arrested on a break and enter and had a mugshot within a week or so that would have confirmed that testimony. That mugshot has never been produced).

So while not asking that the reported (by Washington Post reporters only) employer statement be removed, I am hoping to have this examined in detail by Public Defenders Office this go round and not allow reporters to bias the public's take on this case. Washington Post included in their reporting just yesterday that Chandra was in the park jogging. So I keep fighting the battle of misreporting. Great job here. My thanks. Ralph Daugherty author Murder on a Horse Trail Ralphdaugherty (talk) 18:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We still need to name this article properly

With the case now having dropped back into the "unsolved" category (technically, at least ... there will certainly be those who consider it solved but justice, for whatever reason, not served), we need now more than ever to reconsider the name of this article.

Three years ago, a previous discussion failed to reach a consensus and the existing name was retained. This cannot stay. Levy, regrettably, did not achieve notability through anything she did while she was alive. Her disappearance and death is what is notable.

For the last few years, "Murder of Chandra Levy" would have been fine as Guadique had been convicted, and that was the legal finding pending a new trial. However, now that that charge has been dropped, there is no grounds for calling it a murder as only a legal trier of fact can find that. So, what are our other options? Based on other articles where this problem (case called a murder popularly although no one can currently be said to have been convicted of that crime) exists:

  • Death of Chandra Levy. Inaccurate. The coroner ruled the death a homicide, although his reservations are correctly noted in the article.
  • Killing of Chandra Levy. We have used this for other articles, but it's sort of awkward phrasing and I'd prefer not to use it. Nor is it likely to be searched on.
  • Homicide of Chandra Levy Legally accurate, especially now, but while we do have some articles titled this way I think we should avoid it as it's not the common way to describe it.
  • Chandra Levy murder case A good solution for some articles since it uses the m word without imputing a final factual finding, but however there is no one currently awaiting trial on the charge, so there is really no "case" pending.
  • Chandra Levy murder investigation This seems to me perhaps the best of all for now, although I think this case is as investigated as it's going to get, and that titling implies on an ongoing process.

Of course, all of these can be used as redirects.

We really need to reach some consensus here. I would take the bullet myself and do it, but given the article's GA status and the amount of people who have taken an interest in it I think consensus would be greatly appreciated here. Daniel Case (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for brining this up. Can you explain again why Death of Chandra Levy won't work? Rybkovich (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
We use "Death of ..." for cases that are not officially determined to be homicides, even though there may be notable argument otherwise (i.e. Death of Elisa Lam). Everything that's officially considered to be a homicide should be identified as such. In this case I would consider it for "death of ..." if the coroner's verdict were changed. A good example here: Death of Caylee Anthony, where the body was so decomposed the coroner could not identify a cause of death; nevertheless the state prosecuted her mother for murder anyway, and she was acquitted. Had she been convicted we could have called it "Murder of Caylee Anthony." Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well then I agree that Chandra Levy murder investigation is the best option. I don't think that if the investigation was closed, then that would be a wrong title. There was an investigation and the article is about that investigation. Rybkovich (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to have been away from this for two weeks. Upon further consideration, I think we should go with Chandra Levy homicide investigation as there are no murder charges on the table for anyone at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, then, how about just Chandra Levy homicide? That covers it neatly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, then, there having been no objections in three days, I'm doing this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
A formal WP:RM discussion should have been conducted. Prior move discussions recorded at Talk:Chandra Levy/Archive 2 had a different outcome, and the selected title is not necessarily optimal. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If people wanted an RM, they should have said so here over the past month. Also, the sitation regarding the legal status of her death is not what it was at the time of the previous RM. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2562
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Chandra_Levy/Archive_2&oldid=1136875967"