Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Title move

Discuss this first before unilaterally making moves. See the text of WP:N/CA. Per bold, revert, discuss, now we need discussion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite. Naming it the "murder of" is ridiculous. Eve Carson was notable before her murder. Even if not, she's gained notability from the murder. I cannot fathom how anyone would think to type in "Murder of Eve Carson" when seeking information on her. I think it should be renamed "Eve Carson." Fletch81 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you'll find Eve Carson redirects here, so navigation isn't an issue. The move to this title occurred after the AfD discussion and is now informed by the guideline at WP:N/CA. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eve Carson meets notability criteria as the Student Body President of a major university. There are dozens of articles about her before she was murdered. She was well more notable before being a victim of a crime than the aforementioned Natalee Hollaway, Chandra Levy, and JonBenet Ramsey. The policy shouldn't be arbitrarily applied across wikipedia. Fletch81 (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the only reason she became notable was because of her murder, once an individual becomes notable (for whatever reason) they are notable. There are many articles on individuals who became notable solely because they were murdered. A few examples are Chandra Levy, Natalee Holloway, and JonBenét Ramsey. These people would have never become notable, but for their murder. And I would argue that Carson's life before she was murdered was far more "notable" than any of these individuals. They had done nothing in their lives that was notable, while Carson was student body president of a major university. The very reason her murder was so widely reported was because she was already notable as SBP of UNC. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N/CA repeats the principle that the event, and not the individual, should be covered. Notability in Wikipedia terms prior to her murder is debateable, and was inconclusive when raised at the AfD. I am indifferent to arguments that because some content is one way, this should be as well. Problems in one area of Wikipedia should not be repeated on similar articles. But since you raise it, do we have any sources that give a detailed biography of Eve, beyond what is in this article? Do we have significant ongoing coverage of her (and not her murder - her specifically) that indicates other notability? Because those things are certainly true of Natalee Holloway, but no such sources were found previously for Eve. Holloway was indeed non-notable prior to her murder/disappearance, but has gained notability afterwards by the continued coverage (not the short burst following her murder, per WP:SBST). I'm not really seeing a compelling reason to overturn a pre-existing consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were biographies available for Ms. Carson before her murder (I don't understand what "beyond what is in this article has to do with anything. Wikipedia isn't a source). The biographical information was available as she approached her candidacy for UNC SBP, and even more was known of her after she was elected. Articles were written about her actions as SBP, which is even more notability outside of a simple biography. Were there biographies for Ms. Holloway before her disappearance? Were there articles about Ms. Holloway before she disappeared? Is there significant ongoing coverage of Ms. Holloway (an not her disappearance - her specifically) that indicates other notability? Just google "Eve Carson" and you'll find articles published less than a month ago. Scholarships have been established in her memory. Yes, there is on-going coverage of Ms. Carson in regards to the murder trial, but that doesn't negate her notability before her murder. The scope doesn't have to be as broad as or identical to that of Ms. Holloway, but it appears you've already determined how this article should be presented. I remain unconvinced. In fact, if anything, the Holloway article should be the one re-directed to the "Murder of Natalee Holloway," not the Eve Carson article. Fletch81 (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not made up my mind - consensus can change after all. I'm just pointing out the pre-existing consensus, that the choice of title was not arbitrary and should not lightly be overturned. Might I recommend an RfC to garner further opinions, and the inclusion of the biographical information you allude to (which I clearly don't have), otherwise you'll face accusations that any biography is a coatrack for discussing the single event? My goal is to minimise disruption in what was (and apparently still is) a sensitive area, not to enforce my own point of view. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the choice of title was lightly overturned, but I can't speak for another editor. I'd be thrilled with an RfC for this. Perhaps one should be also applied to the Natalee Holloway, Chandra Levy, and JonBenet Ramsey if we're after even application of wikipedia policy and minimal disruption. Thank you. Fletch81 (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I did not make the move lightly. I read the AfD archive and the discussion archive and I saw no consensus for the initial move to the "Murder of" page in the first place. It appeared that the move was made and people could not come to consensus on whether it was a good move or not. I simply thought I would try the reverse to see where the issue stood. I do think it's a bit silly to title an article the way this one currently is. There are countless biographies on wikipedia for people who are notable for only 1 (or primarily 1) thing, and we still almost always title the article on the person and not what they are notable for. The people who are notable for their murder are only 1 kind. For another example, just look at how many individuals with a biography page are only notable for being on a reality tv show. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love a response from Fritzpoll, as well as the RfC. Fritz was quick to apply bold, revert, discuss, yet seems to have abandoned discussion. Fletch81 (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC seems to be the best way to stop the three of us arguing :) I'll set one up over the weekend. Sorry for the delay replying - afraid I do have other things to do sometimes Fritzpoll (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfC? Fletch81 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have put it at "Murder of" either, but there seems to be a blatant contradiction with this page and that of Abhijit Mahato. With respected to the departed in both cases, was Eve not more notable? Perhaps it's not a consideration or judgment we should make. Regardless, wouldn't it make more sense to organize both pages the way Mahato's is? --BDD (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race of the murderers: African American

The article should include the race of the murderers of Eve Carson: They were African Americans, blacks, colored people, or whatever the politically correct terminology for heavily pigmented of African descent may be. I ain't using the n-word here, though it would be most appropriate. See this link for reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2074232/Eve-Carson-trial-Kidnapped-UNC-student-president-wanted-pray-murder.html They even show pictures of the murderers there, why are there no pictures of them on wikipedia ? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since when would that be the least bit relevant? No one makes a big deal out of the fact that Charles Manson was white. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.83.171 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, try looking at the article again and you will see the ATM photo of Lovette. Other photos are copyrighted which is why they aren't on Wikipedia.
Second, anyone who reads the article and follows the references will figure out the race of the murderers...if that is particularly significant. Is it? I notice that the article you link to shows their photos but never points out their race explicitly.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Race is deemed relevant in the case of white-on-black crime, I don’t see why it wouldn’t when talking about black-on-white crime. — SniperMaské (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just wanted to point out that the race of the murderers, which does not appear to me to be relevant, is mentioned, in the very first paragraph of this article. 2600:1012:B065:101D:A88C:8896:4A46:8492 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder" section

There is a large gap between the "Murder" heading and the text in that section. I don't know how to get rid of it. Can anyone help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDEVER802 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what you are meaning. I saw your edits that stated that you were editing the infobox to make the murder section spacing show up correctly, but not certain why you chose to break the infobox parameter names to do so. Keep the correct parameter names, but comment out the info if you really need to. Otherwise it just looks nonconstructive. Really, though, I have to ask what extra spacing you are talking about. I have tried different browsers and screen resolutions and do not see any extra spacing when I look back through the edit history. Did anyone else see extra spacing? I'm correcting the infobox parameters. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details section

The section of the article containing Eve's photograph and details of her life includes the towns where her body was discovered and where her final resting place is. Is it really necessary to include the latitude and longitude of those locations?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MDEVER802 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I rather like having the coordinates in there because you can click on them and go to google maps or one of the other map sites and see exactly where the body was discovered. With just the text descriptions, if a reader wants to map it they have to go to a map site and manually search for the streets. We could include both the text description and the coordinates link. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as the resting place goes, since there actually is an infobox parameter for resting_place_coordinates, I would say that they are perfectly acceptable to include. The death_cause, body_discovered, monuments, and resting_place_coordinates parameter info were perfectly valid and shouldn't really have been taken out. The only real question I see is whether to include the coordinates along with the written description at body_discovered. I haven't made my mind up on whether it is "necessary" or not, but currently don't mind it. And I would prefer it there rather than included within the article. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer having those parameters filled in the infobox as well. Also, as this article is titled "Murder of Eve Carson" I think coordinates in the infobox for the body discovery is appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Eve_Carson