Talk:West Memphis, Arkansas
|WikiProject Cities||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.
The West Memphis 3 are NOT a significant part of West Memphis history. Cities all over America have horrible crimes (ie Ted Bundy, the Boston Strangler) but they do not show up as a part of the cities history. Look up Boston in Wikipedia...no mention of any particular crime...no mention of the Boston Stranguler! The West Memphis 3 might have a right to their own listing as a crime and as a seperate Wikipedia listing, but does not have anything to do with West Memphis as a city, these types of crime could and do happen anywhere...but the event had nothing to do with West Memphis as a city. The city had no bearing on the crime, only as a location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calldale725 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
West Memphis 3
Information regarding the West Memphis 3 and the related crimes has been continually deleted from this page. It definitely needs to be monitored for a non-POV stance since the convictions are disputed, but the fact remains that it is a significant event in the history of West Memphis. It should at least be mentioned, and then linked to the appropriate related article(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grothor (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that should be noted, but not part of West Memphis information in general. Maybe a notation by the names reading - one of the 3 convicted murderers in a group known as the West Memphis 3- This would be accurate and link to the West Memphis 3 page which is a movement, a cause and POV. An entry like the above may stand as it represents both sides of this issue that will continue to be heated. Then again it may not.
Help me understand why it shouldn't be mentioned as part of the West Memphis information - the fact that it happened is not a movement or cause - it is a part of the history of the city. In the last version you reverted, the movement/cause was entirely covered on the related article and not within the West Memphis article itself. Grothor (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
It is part of the history. The Free the West Memphis 3 is a organization devoted to the belief the three are innocent and the West Memphis 3 page is a vehicle to further this belief which is why that page is plastered with notices from Wikipedia about it being objective and factual. That page is constantly changing. I actually see any inclusion of West Memphis 3 on the West Memphis page offensive and little more than advertisement for that cause. I was seeking common ground if someone thought it was worthy to make them notable people. That being said, mention them for what they are and the affiliation to that page by linking. If someone wants to read about murder they can go there. Should we go to every town on Wikipedia, list the convicted murders and link them? I do not think it relevant or appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpupe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, frankly. It remains a historically - and to be honest, culturally - significant thing. The mention in the West Memphis article, I believe, remains appropriate and inoffensive. The last version you reverted made no mention of any controversy surrounding the case - that matter was left entirely on the WM3 article where it belongs. A statement of fact is not a statement of support.
And you ask - rhetorically, I presume - if we should list all convicted murderers in all cities. If you don't think so, why did you restore the edits from user Gasishigh that do nothing more that list the individuals as murderers without giving any context? Grothor (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, guys. It doesn't look like you are going to reach a compromise between yourselves. I tend to agree with Grothor: the murders and the West Memphis 3 "movement" should be mentioned here, as they are historically and culturally notable. We should try to build a consensus as to how they will be mentioned, in order to preserve NPOV. Maybe we should to turn the WP dispute resolution guidelines for suggestions of how to proceed... Clconway (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily think it needs a lengthy mention, since there's already an article for the entire subject. I suggest something like:
- "West Memphis is the site of a 1993 triple murder in the Robin Hood Hills neighborhood. Three local teenagers, known as the West Memphis 3 were convicted of the crime," or
- "West Memphis is the site of a 1993 triple murder for which three local teenagers, known as the West Memphis 3, were convicted."
- I don't necessarily think it needs a lengthy mention, since there's already an article for the entire subject. I suggest something like:
- I don't have my heart set on that specific wording necessarily. It's just that neither of those statements "feels" POV to me. They're simple statements of what happened, and neither support nor deny any controversial claims regarding the West Memphis 3 (either the convicted individuals, their supporters or any resulting backlash).
- The listing of the convicted three as notable residents also needs to be looked at, in my opinion. The notation of "convicted murderer" doesn't give any context. I'd guess all cities of reasonable size have had a conviction for murder at some point. I think they should either be labeled as members of the West Memphis 3, or just removed from the "notables" list altogether, since anyone who wants additional information on that subject will probably click the West Memphis 3 link anyway.
- Mention the murders rather than the WM3. To not mention the murders, which by now are probably (sadly) a bizarre tourist attraction in themselves, is to deny the role that those horrible killings have played in the history of the town. To *not* mention the murders is a bit like disinformation at this time. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
RFC: West Memphis 3
Disagreement about whether the Robin Hood Hills murders should be discussed in this article and/or whether the accused should be referred to as the West Memphis 3.
- As I have stated above, I think a brief mention is appropriate, because the killings were national news and have been the subject of multiple books and films. Clconway (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uninvolved It is most definitely not part of the Introduction section. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it should not be part of the Introduction section but should be mentioned somewhere else in the article if it is a recent event of historical/cultural significance (as seems to be more or less agreed to according to the discussion above). That being the case, it should be more fully discussed in its own linked-to article (as it appears to be now), where its relevance and impact can be addressed more completely. If there is controversy over balance in that article, then that page is the place to address it.
- In any case, the subject needs to be presented in balance here (that is, within the context of the subject of this entire article). Certainly, these murders and trials are not the only thing that are notable about West Memphis. Its current position in the Introduction section seems to throw the entire article off balance.
- I would suggest moving this to another section, perhaps something like "Recent Events", where it is one part of the whole picture. Fleshing out this entire article on West Memphis, itself, will also help. Thank you. --Contributingfactor (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Having no agenda in this matter at all and being sensitive to the issues raised... I have begun to undertake my own suggestions immediately above by creating a "Recent Events" section for this article which incorporates the murder and Memphis 3 mention as part of an ongoing continuum. I did additional research and have discovered that there have been recent developments in the Memphis 3 matter. I believe those are most appropriately addressed as the subject of a separate article such as the one on the "Memphis 3" already created. I believe I keep neutral POV by merely identifying that this event happened, brought national attention to West Memphis, and is ongoing as of this date. I also believe it is given approximately equal weight and value as other events in this section in order to keep the article on track as one whose subject is West Memphis.
- I'd like to keep this article about West Memphis developing and think that continual expansion of the article and addition of other information about West Memphis will only improve it. Thank you. --Contributingfactor (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Contributingfactor. How nice to see that someone with knowledge adds information to the West Memphis article. Good work! Hey, I do not want to interfere with your work and ideas in progress and edit the article. May I offer a few suggestions instead? What I did edit in the article was to introduce a History section (with Recent history as a sub header). Into that general History section I put the whole second paragraph from the header as that is information strongly related to history. It always looks good, too, if an article is nicely structured with History, Geography, Economy, Demographics, and so on, but with at least a little information in it. What I noticed was that a few of your items in the Recent history might have a better spot in the article. Further down there's an Economy section where some information might be incorporated (these so far are pretty short, your information sould give them a nice length) and the fact about recent developments in the population might have a good place at the end of the demographics, to update that information. I have marked the respective paragraphs in the article source with html comments, so you should see what I mean. Again, I do not want to interfere with your work in progress, the comments do not interfere with the artcile and can be removed easily. An advantage I see is that other editors would be encouraged to add their information at the appropriate spot in the article. If there is too much information about different topics in the Recent history, it might encourage editors to just add their stuff and it could end up like one of these nasty Trivia sections.
- Hey, by the way, that was a pretty smart idea to start the Recent history to be able to move the West Memphis 3 further down. I agree that the information should be included but it was to prominent in the intro. You found a good place for it, still there but not in the spotlight, that is a much smarter move than just deleting it from the article. And thanks for using references! Take care, doxTxob \ talk 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:West memphis ar seal.GIF
Image:West memphis ar seal.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Reversion of edits
Hello, I have reverted all edits by User:Bryantparnell142 since Dec. 22, 2008. Usually, I try and save what is useful in an edit, if possible. In this case I have reverted all edits and restored the version of Dec. 22, 2008 by User:Lightmouse. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Memphis,_Arkansas&oldid=259540576)
My reasons are:
- 1 - Additions to history were copy/paste from the West Memphis Chamber of Commerce. ()
- 2 - West Memphis 3 were copy/paste from Wiki article. As per discussion above the material is covered in depth in the West Memphis 3 article and mentioned shortly in the West Memphis article. The proper way to go.
- 3 - Sourced material in the history section was deleted including references for the information.
- 4 - Copyrighted images and very low quality images were introduced for the flag and seal of West Memphis.
- 5 - Facts were changed blatantly. The exact census population of 2000 (27,666) was changed to a rounded figure (30,000) in the infobox.
Please do not simply re-add the information in question without discussing it on this talkpage first. If you need help with your edits or are unsure how to appropriately add new information to Wikipedia or how existing copyrights might might have effects on your edits, please feel free to let me know. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
WHY IS THERE NO MENTION AT ALL OF THE WEST MEMPHIS 3 ridiculous, and yet another glaring example of why wikipedia is not a real reference tool omission of facts is heinous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added two HTML comments in this section (not viewable in the article) and a "citation needed" tag.
- 1 - "In a pattern typical of urban areas of the Southern United States" needs a supporting citation; otherwise, it reads as just an unsubstantiated claim, possibly contributing to or based on a bias about the American South.
- 2 - "While the crime within West Memphis is typically high, it is relatively low when compared its far larger neighboring city..." may be a valid and important fact but needs a simple clarification: Is it the crime rate (number of crimes per capita) or the number of crimes that is high and that is being compared to other cities?
- 1- Ive added a FBI crimes in the united states by region link.
- 2- The crime rate in Memphis proper is much higher in the total amount of crimes, per capita West Memphis ranks slighlty higher.
Like for instance, Memphis proper had 140 murders for the year of 2005 thus giving the city a murder rate of 20.6 killings per 100,000 civilians.  There were 10 homicides in 2005 for West Memphis and the murder rate was 35.1 per 100,000. It’s the same case for all other forms of crime (assault, robbery, arson, vehicle theft, burglary, rape, thefts).
File:Wmcvb.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Wmcvb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
Hi, it looks like some of the history sections in this article may have gotten out of sequence, as other editors added new information but created a second series of sections.Ethdhelwen (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
West Memphis Three
The paragraph about the "West Memphis Three" should be removed from the lead section and placed elsewhere in the article. There seemed to be consensus about this 5 years ago (see above), and then User:Larrywalter moved it back into the lead section on Oct. 1, 2012. Any problem moving out of the lead and elsewhere in the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)