Wikipedia

Talk:Killing of Chandra Levy/Archive 3

< Talk:Killing of Chandra Levy
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 12 September 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago60 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed 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: Not moved, no coherent arguments supporting the move that would provide substantial benefit to WP readers. Mike Cline (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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)
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)
Daniel Case—you mention our "article-naming policies". What article-naming policies do you have in mind? Could you please link to and quote from those "article-naming policies"? Bus stop (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
In the sense that this article is fundamentally about her death, not her life as once again per WP:BIO1E she was not notable for anything she did while she was alive independent of its relevance to her death, no more than you or I are. Therefore it should be named to properly reflect that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 24 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)
@BarrelProof: Sorry to have taken so long to respond ... I was working on another article about someone who got killed, someone who is actually notable in their own right. But anyway ... You noticed, you said, that I didn't quote the rest of what the medical examiner said. That was because I believed that you would recognize, as I had, that his qualifications, though they should certainly be included in the article, are irrelevant to what we should call it. If he was confident enough to call it a homicide, that's all that matters officially. Everything else you wrote after that is just a waste of text, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 23 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)
@Bus stop:Rodney King became notable because of the way he continued to seek publicity and be an activist after the beating incident. It was enough to get him onto Celebrity Rehab later on. It is entirely possible that someone not notable under BIO1E can eventually become notable in their own right afterwards. Assuming they live. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 23 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, which is about living people but has the same spirit. The point is that the article is primarily about the disappearance and death, not the person, and the title should accurately reflect that. 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 (and Ramsey was only six years old and not well known when killed). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
You say "The point is that the article is primarily about the disappearance and death, not the person, and the title should accurately reflect that." Do you find that in policy or is that an expression of your own opinion? By the way WP:BLP1E is not about article titles. Our RfC concerns an article title. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I suppose we disagree about whether WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E affect article titles. WP:BLP1E says that when the person is only notable because of the part they played in one event, we should "redirect the person's name to the event article", and that is what I and several others are suggesting to do. The article is about the disappearance/death, and the name of the person should be redirected to the article that is about that event – i.e., this article with a different title. Similarly, WP:BIO1E says "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person", so we should have an article about the "Disappearance and death of Chandra Levy", not an article about the person Chandra Levy. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Bring policy to support your argument. The policy that you are producing has bearing on several areas, none of which pertain to article titles. You are producing references to two areas of policy, neither of which is applicable to the RfC under consideration. This RfC attempts to resolve a disagreement concerning the most appropriate title for this article. There is ample guidance to be found at WP:TITLE but you are avoiding that directly-applicable policy—instead favoring jerry–rigged language from unrelated policy. WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E address themselves to whether or not articles should be created. Those two areas of policy offer suggestions and guidance concerning the potential creation of one and sometimes two articles on topics under conditions in which clarity might be hard to come by in the absence of such guidance. But we are not contemplating altering the body of this article one iota in this RfC. No one in this RfC is contemplating creating separate articles relating to event and person. This article already exists in the form in which we see it. If there is to be a change in title you have to bring applicable policy or you have to present your own reasoning in the absence of policy. We know that the Chandra Levy incident received inordinate media coverage. Chandra Levy is a household name. It has recognizability. For some reason you are ready to take a perfectly concise article title and expand it to contain information that quite adequately is contained in the first sentence of the lead. I am at a loss to understand why you are tampering with the title. It already serves the purposes expected of a title. The reader is not interested in the arcane verbiage in WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. This tempest in a teapot is all about the editors; it has nothing to do with the readers. The bottom line is that any article title should be appropriate to the article it adorns. There is more to Chandra Levy than her death. As a responsible encyclopedia we should not choose a title that narrows the significance of her life to her death. Reliable sources, upon which we base our article, place particular emphasis on her relationship with congressman Gary Condit. That is not merely an insignificant aside. Her name occupies a substantial place in the reader's mind as an intern named Chandra Levy who had an affair with a congressman named Gary Condit. I find the attempt to alter the present title to be an attempt to reduce her significance to only that of a murder victim. Regardless of your opinions on extramarital sex, the name Chandra Levy has significance in that department. And this is apart from her death. Her place as paramour is not only widely supported and reported upon by reliable sources but it holds considerable interest to the reader and arguably represents an area of notability that is independent of and separate from her cause of death. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the first mention of some possible gender bias issue here, but I think I would say the same thing about someone male who was generally unknown except for disappearing under curious circumstances and turning up later as a corpse. There are certainly other articles on Wikipedia that follow the "Death of ..." or "Murder of ..." convention for the same reason and are not about female victims. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
But I didn't say there was any "gender bias". A big problem here is that you are arguing for a title change without bringing any relevant policy to bear. Bus stop (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that we should agree that you and I disagree about whether WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E are relevant policies. And if it's not a matter of gender bias, why would you post something to Wikiproject Feminism? What is the connection to feminism? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you would like, I will delete my posts to both Wikiproject Feminism and Wikiproject Sexuality. It is not important. But more eyes are needed here. More input is needed here. You are misapplying policy to the detriment of this article. This article exists and no editor is advocating changing this article in any way. This RfC only concerns the title of the article. Our concern in this RfC is not whether to split this article or to delete this article. Those are the concerns of WP:BIO1E. But no one in this discussion has seriously advocated splitting or deleting this article. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
At this point, I think we have said what we have to say and are mostly repeating ourselves. I will try to resist further commenting. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Arguably many more articles should simply use the female's name for the title. I don't want to get into an extended discussion of why I feel that way. I instead want to stick to this article. But suffice to say that many of the examples advanced in these types of discussions (see here and here) as prior instances in which the deceased female's name in the title is appended by "death of" or some such wording are, in my opinion, good candidates for streamlining to just the female's name. I am going to stop here because each article is somewhat different and this can obviously become a complicated discussion. Bus stop (talk) 10:52, 22 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)
  • Oppose. A long dead person, with sourceable material covering more than just her death, and with this article and external sources covering the subject generally, it is appropriate to title this simply as a biography. The proposal to rename to a more constrained subject appears motivated to constrain the coverage of the subject, specifically to eliminate sections Chandra_Levy#Life_and_background and Chandra_Levy#Impact. A chicken and egg scenario, this should be considered openly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
As the original renamer: Wow ... such a stellar job assuming good faith there! The proposal to rename is in line with policy and whatever is in the article is a separate question. Certainly titling it after the event does not constrain us from including a short biography of the subject; I try to do that with every person who gets killed or goes missing that I write about, and when a lengthier bio would include details that become relevant in light of the subject's death (like Murder of Janet March, where I felt that a history of her marriage was justified, not in the least because her husband was ultimately convicted of killing her but issues that came up during the marriage had a lot to do with that), we should include them. But, as I said, that's a separate question from the title. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The usual purpose of an RM to a focused title is to constrain content. There are many examples, I thought this was well understood. Otherwise, WP:CONCISE applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the article is already implicitly constrained in content. As for conciseness, well, I don't think adding "homicide" to the end of the title makes it appreciably less concise. Instead, it informs the reader more honestly what the article is about, as written. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
As concerns possible titles for this article the distinction between a Chandra Levy who accomplished something in life and a Chandra Levy who was merely killed is a relatively minor distinction. "Chandra Levy" is a significant and essential term for the title. "Homicide" is a far less significant term and we learn in the first sentence of the lead that her life was ended by a homicide. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Her death is notable, beyond doubt. Not her life. End of discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SmokeyJoe. She is notable and meets WP:GNG for more than just her death. Furthermore, this has already been established at prior RM and RfC, and nothing has really changed. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
How is she notable in any way for anything but her death? Any discussions of her life, biographical articles etc., were only researched and written because she died. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You are shifting the focus of the discussion to whether or not she is notable, but isn't the question here one concerning the title? The present title distinguishes this article from any other article. It identifies the article. What would be accomplished by adding additional information such as "death of"? The very first sentence of the lead tells us that she has died. Additionally, this article is in Category:Unsolved murders in the United States and Category:2001 murders in the United States. Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bus stop: The two discussions cannot be separated. The title expresses what is notable about the subject. A discussion purely about the title would be about whether we would use "Murder of ..." or "... homicide" (an argument that can really only be settled with the latter option, for reasons I've gone into elsewhere). If her death is what is notable (and it is, much more than her life, as the article currently reflects), then the article cannot be titled with just her name.

Those categories would be on the article in any event ... when the article is properly titled, the ones that relate to Levy as a person can be moved to the redirect (as I had done until that edit was reverted pending the outcome of this discussion a few hours ago) with just her name. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Case—who was killed? Therefore her name should be the title of the article. How would the reader find this article? There are more than one means. One way would be to type "Chandra Levy" into our search window. A reader is not going to search for "Death of Chandra Levy". So why include the extra language in the title? It is unnecessary that we include "death of" or any such language in the title. An article title is not for the purpose of explaining unnecessary points about the article. Why don't we choose an article title of "Death of intern Chandra Levy who had affair with Gary Condit"? Of course I am being facetious. Notability is one thing and article titling is another. We don't have to indicate notability in an article title. Notability is important. Notability dictates whether or not we should have one or more articles on related subjects. We have an article on George Zimmerman, Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin, Trial of George Zimmerman and Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Notability guidelines must be taken into consideration in determining if these article can and should exist. Once we determine that such an article should exist, we set about naming it appropriately. One factor is its relation to articles on a similar subject. In the case of our article here on this Talk page we are not trying to distinguish it from an article on a similar subject. Notability requirements are satisfied as concerns the existence of the article. Now we set about titling it appropriately. The purposes of a title are satisfied by just the name of the central figure of the article. Notability is not forcing our hand to include additional information in the title. A title is not a place for gratuitous information, even slightly gratuitous information. Once titling requirements are satisfied, we should stop. I think you will agree that no term is as important in the title of this article as the central character's name. What you are asking for is the inclusion of one or more terms of secondary importance. Bus stop (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
"The present title distinguishes this article from any other article." I don't think that is in dispute. The problem is that "Chandra Levy" is not the topic of the article. Look at the content. There is more about Ingmar Guandique's life than there is about Levy's. If we are to violate WP:BIO1E and have an article about Levy herself, this article is not it. (Almost half of the text is about Guandique so, if anything, we should move to to his name.) The common thread of the article is the disappearance/death of Levy and not her biography. —  AjaxSmack  06:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
AjaxSmack—you say "If we are to violate WP:BIO1E and have an article about Levy herself, this article is not it". But we are not violating WP:BIO1E. The issue here is the title. You want to hoist information from the body of the article up into the title. I oppose that. I argue that the most significant term for placement in the title is the name of the person at the heart of this article. That is information that warrants hoisting up into the title. An article has to have a title. But once that title has been arrived at we do not need to add additional information. Nothing is compelling us to include additional information. Doing so can be considered optional if justified. I just don't see the compelling reason for adding any of the information suggested. "Disappearance of" or "Murder of" or "Death of" represents an elaboration on an already adequate title. As a general or default rule I don't think article titles should contain information beyond that which satisfies the requirements for a good title. I consider "Chandra Levy" to be a good title for this article. The title doesn't need bulking up. It is fine the way it is. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2016 (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.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chandra Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Chandra_Levy/Archive_3&oldid=1136875977"