Talk:Murder of Eve Carson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Eve Carson

Eve Carson was incredibly important to the UNC community, and beyond. Read CNN's coverage here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/06/unc.student.killed/

I agree. I think this is relevant as a current event item, as it has been frontpaged on all major media sites. Jehb (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition, this "event" is still under investigation. This may be part of a larger picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.69.147 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is such an incredible tragedy for the Carson family, the University of North Carolina, and America. Eve Carson had the potential to do great things in her life, and now we will never know to what heights she may have risen. My condolences to everyone who loved her. It is my fervent hope that her killer be quickly found and summarily executed. Mamarazzi (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

WP:MEMORIAL 24.124.109.67 (talk) 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of encyclopedic legitimacy, if Eve Carson is o important for UNC, the article itself should have more information on her life than her death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.132.31 (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the article needs more on Carson's life, and details will continue to be filled in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwulsin (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Beware of memorializing. However, the nomination for deletion was done by an IP address with recent vulgar entries and of course acting anonymously - in short, as cowardly as the murderer. [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone is leaving vulgar comments then IT MIGHT BE THE MURDERER! Some of them DO want bragging rights! Sorry for her loss and the loss of the college community.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Also beware of that level of personal attack. And what is the likelihood that the low-life that did this reads wikipedia? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
... or reads, period ...? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
Bingo. Meanwhile, the Lauren Burk page got zapped. Maybe if it had started out as "Murder of..." then things would have worked out differently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Article should be on the murder, not on Carson herself

Carson is notable for the singular event of her death. See Megan Meier suicide controversy as a very similar example. The article is not in need of much more on Carson's life, but rather encylcopedic data regarding the circumstances of her death. Gwynand (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I've made my argument at the AfD. faithless (speak) 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. Carson was a very popular, important member of the UNC campus.

That's as may be, but it's irrelevant. Wikipedia has notability guidelines. Eve Carson does not meet those guidelines, but her murder has received extensive press coverage. faithless (speak) 20:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add details on the murderers and the Wikipedia moderators reverted my edits. As usual the mod cabal is more concerned about their power trips than keeping Wikipedia factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.71.177 (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I think they're more concerned about idiots who use the "N" word derisively [2]. WWGB (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

I don't think this article should be deleted, but I think that we should at least add the picture of her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.60.232 (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Importance"

Firstly, let me say that the death of ANY human being is naturally a huge loss, whether that loss is felt nationwide or worldwide, or if the death only affects those close to the individual. I, for example, live far from where Eve Carson lived and died, and I did not know her personally. Nevertheless, when the reports of her murder surfaced, I felt a sense of loss due to the very nature of the situation. A young, well-respected, beautiful girl on her way to success was gunned down on the streets of America. Human life is extremely precious. Eve Carson had memories, desires, ambitions, loves, passions, and feelings that only she knew intimately. The same is true for any human being, on an individual basis. So yes, it's an incredible tragedy that she had her life and her future taken from her. It's even more frustrating that this type of story is not at all unique. Day after day after day, I read about another senseless murder, or another school shooting or mall shooting - mainly in America, although I'm not here to knock America.

But...having said all this, it does seems a bit out-of-place to have an article about Eve Carson on Wikipedia. Not that she wasn't important to her friends, family, school, and to some extent, to her community. But, ugly as it may seem to say this, her name would not be known outside a relatively small group of people had she not been maliciously killed. If she had, for example, lived well into her 60s or 70s and then died of a natural cause, chances are she would not have been considered "notable" enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. I'm not suggesting that you need to be rich and famous to be included on this website. But, I suppose I am suggesting that one's level of recognition needs to be higher or more widespread than that of Eve Carson. Sad as it is, what made her "known" outside of her community was the outpouring of grief over her very untimely death. I'm suggesting that those circumstances alone should not be grounds for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Please don't misunderstand me. I recognize her death as a tragic loss, but I debate the overall legitimacy of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamilive (talk • contribs) 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm from half-way around the world and I absolutely disagree. Koalorka (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I was about to enter a discussion with you about how you could possibly disagree with my statement. However, that was before I learned that you have single-handedly written over 40 articles about guns. I concede defeat out of fear for my life. Swamilive (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This story is the tip of the iceberg. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

hey, as long as he keeps writing about them i'd discuss his point... it's when he stops writing and picks one up i'm ending the convo! there's alot of people on the planet and if a person is known enough to feature in a lot of news then i'd have to accept the bigger picture and admit that to some people this person was significant to warrant a wiki entry... i'd say the last thing it is ...is up to us who don't know the mentioned person to argue the point whether a wiki entry is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.6.35 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For interested parties

This is aimed mostly at those of you who commented at the deletion debate that recently closed as no consensus. As I mentioned within the debate, a handful of users and I have hammered out the basics of a guideline. The proposal is at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts), and I am trying to seek a community consensus on this topic. Please feel free to drop by and make comments on the talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work in being proactive about this issue. Maybe it can be settled for once and for all, one way or another. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Keep for now; delete it later if need be

Like it or not, Wikipedia is the first place people go for information, and I think it's best served as a place for people to keep her case up to date. If in a few months or years it becomes clear that Eve is no longer notable (strictly from a wikipedian definition thereof!!!) and people aren't coming to this page regularly, then go ahead and delete it. For all we know, this will end up being a lot more "notable" than we can fathom at this point. 71.65.240.196 (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Other articles

So if this is renamed the Murder of Eve Carson then shouldn't the article on Anna Svidersky be renamed the Murder of Anna Svidersky? I brought this article up before in the AfD for Eve Carson but no one addressed it. Svidersky's sole media noteriety was her murder as is with Carson. There seems to be a double standard here. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard, per se. This page isn't called what it is due to strict policy, but rather from logical discussion of what the article is really about. At the moment, each similar article should be taken on a case by case basis. Are people currently disagreeing with you on the name change for the Svidersky article? Bring up your proposal there and see how it goesGwynand (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed the logical discussion, because it appears there was very little consensus on whether the article should be about the murder or about Ms. Carson. In my own personal experience, I wouldn't come to wikipedia and type in "Murder of Eve Carson," I would simply type "Eve Carson." This article is about more than her murder. I believe the article should simply be titled "Eve Carson." Fletch81 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't go into it all again, but there was tons of discussion on it. Think about it this way... now that significant suspects have been found, they will be included here. If it is simply called "Eve Carson" then this would start to get dicey. Gwynand (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What do "significant suspects" have to do with it? Should biographies of notable persons have separate articles for each subjectively "worthy moments" in their lives? By your logic, there should be an article about Eve Carson, then a separate article about her murder where the suspects can be discussed. Let me liken this article to the article about Nicole Brown Simpson, murdered wife of OJ Simpson. I know they aren't exact parallels, but do you see my point? Fletch81 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, please explain what you mean by "dicey."Fletch81 (talk) 16:57, 19 March2008 (UTC)
Well, this is getting right back into it. I'd say despite everything else, there was a pretty solid consensus that Eve Carson was not notable pre-murder--and I'll definitely stand by that interpration. Read the AfD, there wasn't much of an argument on that point. There aren't wikipedia articles for class presidents or scholarship winners or highly involved community members. Had Eve not been murdered, there would have been no mention of her on wikipedia (at that point in her life). Gwynand (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, I still don't understand why "Murder of" somehow validates this article. It seems you invented a policy on naming articles. As you said, "This page isn't called what it is due to strict policy, but rather from logical discussion of what the article is really about." This article is about Eve Carson and her murder, not just her murder. Fletch81 (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is read the afd on this. I didnt personally make the name change, others interpreted the consensus as such and made the change. Gwynand (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

<outdent> (edit conflicted) The notability (as seen through the sourcing) is the event, not the person. If you type Eve Carson, as you suggest you may very well search for, you will get to the article that you are trying to get to. It's titled correctly. "Other articles" are titled incorrectly and should be fixed. Let me ask you Fletch, if Eve Carson had not been murdered (which is the event she is unfortunately known for), would you have ever come to Wikipedia and thought..."I wonder if there is an article about a random person named Eve Carson?" You are only searching for it because of the event. Therefore, the notability is the event. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That may very well be true, but to title an article "Murder of" doesn't make it encyclopedic. It makes it read like a news article. It can be made clear in the article that she is notable for her murder. The subtlety of the titling is only going to confuse the novice wikipedian, and doesn't serve to clarify the reason she is notable. It should be reverted to "Eve Carson," and explained she gained notability for the press coverage on her murder. That would clarify things a lot more than redirecting someone from "Eve Carson" to "Murder of Eve Carson." Furthermore, the subjective nature of this policy is a slippery slope which should be addressed. Fletch81 (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
But Fletch, Eve Carson isn't notable. Her murder (unfortunately) is. Nothing slippery here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. Nothing slippery there, either. Fletch81 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fletch, I think you are dancing around a lot, but I'm not sure what your specific point is. You are writing intelligently and I'd definitely liked to see your argument, because I admit some of this is coming down to bickering now, myself included. Ill pose two questions. 1. Do you believe that Eve Carson was notable enough for an enyclopedia article prior to her murder? 2. Why do you specifically think it should be titled Eve Carson and not Murder of Eve Carson?Gwynand (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No dancing here, either. My specific point is quite clear. Titling an article the "Murder of" does not make it more encyclopedic. Its a poor way of addressing a gray area of notability. It is my contention that this article should be simply titled "Eve Carson," and her national notability be described in the article. To address your specific questions.... Was she notable before the murder? Simply because there isn't an article existing on someone doesn't invalidate their notability. Specifically as quoted from WP: BIO

When a person is associated with only one event, such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election, consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

If one follows up on this, its clear that Eve Carson was notable before her murder, even if not on a national scale. The crime surrounding her death can also be argued to be important, not unimportant. To support this from the notability guidelines

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

She was subject of secondary sourced material before her death.

Secondary sources include textbooks, encyclopedias, biographies, and web sites.

Ultimately, though the national media attention made her famous to many, don't confuse fame with notability. She was notable before her murder. Therefore, this article should be reverted to its prior name. Fletch81 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Response (bolded for clarity). OK. I'm glad you made your point. However, after reading it I'd say you have issues with policy interpretation (which very well may be valid) as opposed to this specific case. Under your interpretation of what makes someone notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia, there would be millions included. Heck, I've been the subject of news articles, websites, I've been published, won a scholarship... I don't interpret myself as notable from such, although I concede it could be possible that I could interpret the policy as such. Anyways, thanks for the thoughtful response. Gwynand (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Not to be obtuse, but in this specific case, hasn't the point of contention boiled down to policy interpretation? Fletch81 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it's a good point, but I think I mean for us to go any further it would get into some Clintonian definitions. Like what does "subject" mean. I think it's a stretch to really say that Carson was the subject of media coverage (same goes for me), prior to her death. You weren't the first to bring this point up, and no one was able to provide any substantial coverage of Carson, more just like little snippets from sources here and there about her. No textbooks with her as a topic, or anything close to that. Definitely join us at the place that Keeper mentioned, though. There is a lot of good discussion going on there. Gwynand (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes! Good observation, and not at all obtuse. There is one policy/guideline, and it is read exactly opposite by two different "factions" of good faith editors. Which is why there is currently a very good discussion happening to update the notability guidelines to address exactly this. You are welcome to join, Fletch, at Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), as well as its talkpage. Also, you are welcome to join the endorse or oppose "poll" happening at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)