Talk:Killing of Chandra Levy

Racism

Why is that unsubstantiated section on "racist" media coverage in this article. What source proves there are hundreds of black women missing in Washington D.C.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.9.247 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2009

Specialized Consultants

At the strong suggestion of outside "Specialized Consultants", ranging from scientific to psychical professionals. The Rock Creek Park location was re-examined again. Looking deeper into a far more dense wooded area, the police would discover what would later be her remains. In the past, many of these "specialized consultants" have been successful in similar cases before. In a related case, one of these outside "Specialized Consultants" that worked The Levy Case, became involved in California, where three female college students were reported missing. Police would later follow-up on the suggestions. Sadly two of the three female students bodies were discovered buried under the convicted suspects home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedwardmoch (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2009

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629132403/http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_16436046 to http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_16436046
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110214185241/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0212-chandra-levy-20110212,0,677157.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0212-chandra-levy-20110212,0,677157.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101023123935/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/news/national/2009/02/22/2009-02-22_no_longer_a_target_in_chandra_levy_case_.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/02/22/2009-02-22_no_longer_a_target_in_chandra_levy_case_.html

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 II}_{Talk 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)

Requested move 12 September 2016

Chandra Levy → Chandra Levy homicide – Or homicide of Chandra Levy or something else. The title was recently discussed starting a month ago. The move was conducted without enough consensus. I did start the previous RM discussion three years ago, but that led to "no consensus". Somehow, no one, including me, was aware of the move a few weeks ago. The title was reverted back to just the woman's name. Now I will start a newer discussion in a proper way. Frankly, I don't mind a title change only when there is another RM. The recent move was a violation of consensus result... well, there wasn't a consensus, so there. Alternatively, if "homicide" is not appropriate word as part of the title, how about "death" or "death and disappearance" or "homicide investigation" or "murder investigation" or something else? (Note: I didn't come up with "investigation".) George Ho (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It should definitely not be just her name. The article is not about her it is about her death and the events afterwards. So I say The Death of Chandra Leavy. That title is simple, to the point, is not confusing, is not false. From what I read above it does not violate wiki title customs. Rybkovich (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support a move from the current title to any of the suggestions above preferred by others. —  AjaxSmack  21:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Which title do you prefer, Ajax? George Ho (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which title other than the present title is under consideration. There is no need for a title change and every reason to retain the present title. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh? There is a good reason for a move summarized in WP:BIO1E. Levy was not even notable for one event. Dying, which has afflicted or will afflict everyone who is now or ever has been alive is hardly notable. It is the events that occurred surrounding her disappearance and death that are notable. As far as a specific title goes, I favored Death of Chandra Levy in the last RM as she "disappeared" because she was dead. However, I would prefer to wait for the discussion to proceed here before further comment on a specific title. User:BarrelProof makes good points below. —  AjaxSmack  07:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to distinguish this Chandra Levy from another Chandra Levy. The name Chandra Levy is perfectly recognizable. The name already has recognizability beyond anything accomplished by adding descriptive terms. There is no need to explain anything in the title of this article. We invent descriptive titles when necessary but that is not necessary in this instance. Concision matters here and respecting the memory of the deceased should matter here also. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The motivation for this move is not disambiguation – it is more a matter of what is notable about the topic, and the suggestion is that Levy's disappearance and death are what is notable, rather than Levy herself as a person. She is notable more for her absence than for what she did while she was alive. Please see WP:BIO1E. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing accomplished by appending a description to the title. Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Other than properly reflecting our notability and article-naming policies, no. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Move to Disappearance and death of Chandra Levy or Death of Chandra Levy per WP:BIO1E. See prior discussion at Talk:Chandra Levy/Archive 2#Requested move (in which I said the same thing). Is it even clear that this was a homicide? Her disappearance was actually more widely reported than her death (since she was missing for a full year and it raised questions about the congressman; he lost in the primary election before her body was discovered, and the subsequent news was just treated as aftermath). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have appreciated having been notified of this revert and discussion, since it was I who made this move, to what I am even more firmly convinced is the only title we can use. @BarrelProof:: "Is it even clear that this was a homicide" It would be a good idea to read the article thoroughly, especially the "Discovery of remains" section, where it clearly says "On May 28, D.C. medical examiner Jonathan L. Arden officially declared Levy's death a homicide... " sourced to this AP story. That finding is the only official one, and AFAIK it has never been changed.

"Her disappearance was even more widely reported than her death" ... indeed, since her remains were discovered a few months after 9/11, when the news was still dominated by all the stories that came out of that (see the "Media coverage" section). I suspect that had the attacks not happened, you would not be making that argument. And at the time her remains were discovered, there was still the possibility that Condit would be charged, regardless of whether or not he had been reelected. I remind you to read the article again; you'll also see that Dominick Dunne's poorly-sourced (as with so much of his other coverage) remarks about Condit's apparent guilt led in later 2000s to Condit's defamation lawsuit which ended his career as a celebrity accuser of celebrities, and probably shortened his life somewhat. This is in addition to the murder trial. So it had continuing notable consequences long after her body was found.

As for using "Disappearance of ..." well, they found her remains, didn't they? She is no longer missing, and that trumps any claim that we should title the article that way because of what people found most fascinating about the story. We can certainly use that title as a redirect, though.

Other than that, you have argued correctly above. Anyone searching under "Chandra Levy" will be redirected here; any argument about what the article should be titled needs to take that into account. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I notice that you quoted the medical examiner, but did not include the part of what he said that is in the article. That part says "There's less to work with here than I would like. It's possible we will never know specifically how she died." So the medical examiner very clearly said he didn't really know what caused her death, and as far as I know, there is still no clear evidence of what, exactly, caused her death – her body hadn't even been buried. As best I can tell, the notion that it was homicide is based solely on the idea that this seems likely when an apparently healthy person turns up as skeletal remains in a park. That's pretty weak – far short of a firm conclusion. The article contains a report of a prosecutor's theory that she had been tied up and left to die that way, but no mention of any real evidence that this happened – e.g., no rope found with the body. And regardless of that, the case against the accused was eventually vacated and dropped. You don't seem to dispute the fact that the case is more known for her long disappearance than for what happened later. Most people who have heard of the case are probably not aware of the rest. The rest is still very notable, of course, but it is not what is most recognizable about the case to most people. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The media has bestowed notability on her. (Our article refers to the "intense media focus" on her.) Her name is sufficient for the title. Adding descriptive terminology to the title accomplishes nothing. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"The biggest news story of the early summer of 2001 had been the daily drumbeat concerning the investigation into the death of a young woman named Chandra Levy. Chandra, who had been an intern for California Congressman Gary Condit, had been found murdered along a jogging path in Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC. The incident had all the lurid qualities tthat usually sustain intense media focus on one story in modern America, and despite its truly sad content, it seemed amazing to me that it received almost more attention than all the other news stories put together." Bus stop (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not an obscure news story and this is not an obscure name. The name has all the recognizability an article title calls for. Bus stop (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The motivation for this move is not recognizability – it is more a matter of what is notable about the topic, and the suggestion is that Levy's disappearance and death are what is notable, rather than Levy herself as a person. She is notable more for her absence than for what she did while she was alive. Please see WP:BIO1E. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

When you are choosing a title you are concerned with recognizability. You cannot pick and choose what is notable about the life of Chandra Levy because reliable sources have already determined that everything about Chandra Levy is of interest. News sources are an important component of reliable sources and their exploration of the life of Chandra Levy virtually knows no bounds. She has been the subject of intense media scrutiny. Probably no aspect of her life has been left unexplored. You cannot argue that her notability for Wikipedia purposes is limited to her disappearance, or her death. She has come under a microscope and this establishes notability apart from the accomplishments that often account for notability. The Rodney King article would not be called something like "The police-beating of Rodney King". One important reason for this is because media reporting has made the name Rodney King virtually synonymous with a type of American real-life drama. Reporting by reliable sources has made of Chandra Levy a notable person whether or not an individual Wikipedia editor feels that there is justification for such notability. An article title for a notable person calls for recognizability and conciseness. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - we had a similar discussion a few years back. Clearly this article subject does not need to be merged to the incident itself. Here is clearly enough substantial coverage of her as a person to justify a bio article.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the previous discussion did not end with declaring a consensus to use the title "Chandra Levy". It was a declaration of no consensus to change the title, which is a bit different. There is already no separate article about her disappearance and death, as far as I know, so I don't understand the comment about whether the topics should be "merged". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support From People Notable For Only One Event in the Wikipedia Notability Article WP:BIO1E: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. 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 is notable for the event - her death. I think it is reasonable to assume that most people that are reading the article intend to gain information regarding the death of Chandra Levy, not general information regarding her as a person. If a large part of readers are looking for information about Chandra Levy that is not connected with her death, then it would make sense to create a separate article regarding her. Per rule above, that would be the situation where there is an article titled "Chandra Levy." In regards to the title of the current article my suggestion is Death of Chandra LevyRybkovich (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Rybkovich—I think the name Chandra Levy is shorthand for all the events surrounding the life of Chandra Levy just as Rodney King is shorthand for all the events surrounding the life of Rodney King and just as Abner Louima is shorthand for all the events surrounding the life of Abner Louima. Please tell me if you disagree. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop I think those are good examples to consider your point. I would say that the difference is that the people that you refer to survived after the event, their story continued after what happened, so they got their own articles. This is not the case with allot of articles regarding murder victims. Some good examples of "murder of" titled articles are murder of meredith kercher, Murder of Jennifer Moore, Murder of Leigh Leigh. In these cases the life of the person ended with the event. I found allot more similar articles by googling "murder of wiki", the number of results is infinite :) I can see your point but ultimately disagree. How/when will we resolve the issue? Did a quick count, seems like a 6 to 2 in favor of the move. Both sides make good points but I think making the move is the right solution under our circumstances. Rybkovich (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rybkovich—when the name alone is symbolic of all that is associated with it, there is no need to amend the name. The name "Chandra Levy" is symbolic also of the affair with the congressman—is it not? Bus stop (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Bus stop I can see that, besides what happened, her name is also associated with the congressman as it is one of the major media covered parts of the story. The points you made, like the rodney king example, made me less concerned re current title of the article (I thought it was clearly wrong at first). Still my personal view is that the info in it is more connected to the event rather than her. So I still support the move. At the same time I now think that solid arguments can be made in either direction. Rybkovich (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Rybkovich—there is no requirement to falsely limit the scope of an article. You are misreading/misapplying policy. It would represent a false limitation on the scope of this article to title it for instance "Murder of Chandra Levy" or "Disappearance of Chandra Levy". It would be false because the article scope is not limited to the death of Chandra Levy. The policy language presented (WP:BIO1E) discusses choosing between writing an article about an individual and/or writing an article about an event. We are not presented with that quandary at the Chandra Levy article. No one is seriously thinking of splitting the Chandra Levy article into an "event" article and a "person" article. We are contemplating the title of this article. If you are in agreement that the congressman Condit part of this article is of any importance why would you argue for a title that only acknowledges the death of the intern? Policy doesn't force us to forego titles that truly reflect the scope of the article in favor of titles that falsely reflect the scope of the article. I basically would aim for compliance with WP:TITLE. Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

No one has suggested reducing the scope of the article. Articles are allowed to contain some discussion of topics that are not the main topic of the article (e.g., to provide context or to cover topics for which a separate article is not necessary). —BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

BarrelProof—why would we intentionally choose a title that suggests any limitation of scope? (I am aware that no one has suggested reducing the scope of the article.) We are discussing the title of the article as it presently exists. The applicable policy for discussing the title of the article in this RfC is WP:TITLE, not WP:BIO1E. This RfC is discussing the article in its present form. I don't think this RfC is contemplating making any other changes to the article. I believe that only the title of the article is under discussion in this particular RfC. Bus stop (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe WP:BIO1E does apply very well here. The primary notable topic here is Ms Levy's disappearance and death and the aftermath of that, not Ms Levy herself. She was not especially notable for anything other than disappearing under highly questionable circumstances (and later being discovered as a corpse). The title should reflect that. If you look at the article, you'll see that it starts with an introductory lead statement saying that what is notable about her is her disappearance and presumed murder – no other type of notability is mentioned at the summary level. The rest of the article is divided neatly into sections. The "Life and background" section is two brief paragraphs and doesn't describe anything that is highly noteworthy about her life or background – it is merely background information to provide a context for the later discussion of her disappearance and death. The bulk of the article is in the "Murder case" section, which contains nine subsections and sub-subsections, almost all of which are longer than the "Life and background" section. Then there is an "Impact" section, which is about the impact of the case and its reporting – not about Ms Levy as a person. Finally, the "See also" section links to other articles about crime and murder – not to other articles about people who were her friends or organizations she was involved in or any aspects of her life. The most accurate title to use for this content is one that focuses on her disappearance and death, since that is what the article is primarily about. That does not imply any strict restriction of scope or any need to remove something or any need to avoid adding something that we can identify that is about Ms Levy and is truly noteworthy – it is merely an accurate reflection of what the article is about. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't use inapplicable policy. At least use applicable policy. WP:BIO1E is not about article titles. This is an RfC which addresses itself to the title of this article. WP:BIO1E contains language such as "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." But we are not discussing, in this RfC, "whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." We are discussing the title of the article as the article presently exists. For policy on titles you have to look to WP:TITLE. If you go through WP:BIO1E you will not find language addressing itself to the choice of title. WP:BIO1E for instance says "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." But we are not "considering whether or not to create separate articles", are we? Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Also see WP:BLP1E. Another example that is currently undergoing a title discussion is Murder of JonBenét Ramsey, although there is no dispute for that article about whether the title should focus on the death or the person. I think there is actually more non-death background material about the life of JonBenét Ramsey in that article than there is about Chandra Levy in this article. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The applicable policy here is WP:TITLE. The wrong policy has been cited by the "Support" votes. WP:BIO1E may be policy, but it is not applicable to the question posed in the RfC. We are contemplating changing the title and we are evaluating possible titles, including the present one. We are not considering dividing the present article into two articles, not in this RfC anyway. Let me add that in my opinion there would be no reason to divide this article into two separate articles. The article has a natural scope. Yes, it includes "death of" or "disappearance of" or "murder of"—but it also includes material separate from cessation of life as concerns the central figure of the article. The scope of the article is what it is. There is no "right" or "wrong" scope. The title should be inclusive of much of that scope. That is accomplished with the name alone. WP:TITLE calls for conciseness and recognizability. The subject of the article is "recognized" by this name. "Conciseness" is obviously accomplished by not appending information to the title as contemplated in this RfC. That added information has a downside that we should be cognizant of. It implies that this article is limited to covering the details of the death of the central figure of the article, when this article covers much more. The name alone represents the best possible title for this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)