Talk:West Memphis, Arkansas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

	This article is part of WikiProject Arkansas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arkansas.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] West Memphis 3

Information regarding the West Memphis 3 and the related crimes has been continually deleted from this page. It definitely needs to be monitored for a non-POV stance since the convictions are disputed, but the fact remains that it is a significant event in the history of West Memphis. It should at least be mentioned, and then linked to the appropriate related article(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grothor (talk • contribs) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that should be noted, but not part of West Memphis information in general. Maybe a notation by the names reading - one of the 3 convicted murderers in a group known as the West Memphis 3- This would be accurate and link to the West Memphis 3 page which is a movement, a cause and POV. An entry like the above may stand as it represents both sides of this issue that will continue to be heated. Then again it may not.

Help me understand why it shouldn't be mentioned as part of the West Memphis information - the fact that it happened is not a movement or cause - it is a part of the history of the city. In the last version you reverted, the movement/cause was entirely covered on the related article and not within the West Memphis article itself. Grothor (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is part of the history. The Free the West Memphis 3 is a organization devoted to the belief the three are innocent and the West Memphis 3 page is a vehicle to further this belief which is why that page is plastered with notices from Wikipedia about it being objective and factual. That page is constantly changing. I actually see any inclusion of West Memphis 3 on the West Memphis page offensive and little more than advertisement for that cause. I was seeking common ground if someone thought it was worthy to make them notable people. That being said, mention them for what they are and the affiliation to that page by linking. If someone wants to read about murder they can go there. Should we go to every town on Wikipedia, list the convicted murders and link them? I do not think it relevant or appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpupe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter whether you like it or not, frankly. It remains a historically - and to be honest, culturally - significant thing. The mention in the West Memphis article, I believe, remains appropriate and inoffensive. The last version you reverted made no mention of any controversy surrounding the case - that matter was left entirely on the WM3 article where it belongs. A statement of fact is not a statement of support.

And you ask - rhetorically, I presume - if we should list all convicted murderers in all cities. If you don't think so, why did you restore the edits from user Gasishigh that do nothing more that list the individuals as murderers without giving any context? Grothor (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, guys. It doesn't look like you are going to reach a compromise between yourselves. I tend to agree with Grothor: the murders and the West Memphis 3 "movement" should be mentioned here, as they are historically and culturally notable. We should try to build a consensus as to how they will be mentioned, in order to preserve NPOV. Maybe we should to turn the WP dispute resolution guidelines for suggestions of how to proceed... Clconway (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think it needs a lengthy mention, since there's already an article for the entire subject. I suggest something like:

• "West Memphis is the site of a 1993 triple murder in the Robin Hood Hills neighborhood. Three local teenagers, known as the West Memphis 3 were convicted of the crime," or
• "West Memphis is the site of a 1993 triple murder for which three local teenagers, known as the West Memphis 3, were convicted."

I don't have my heart set on that specific wording necessarily. It's just that neither of those statements "feels" POV to me. They're simple statements of what happened, and neither support nor deny any controversial claims regarding the West Memphis 3 (either the convicted individuals, their supporters or any resulting backlash).

The listing of the convicted three as notable residents also needs to be looked at, in my opinion. The notation of "convicted murderer" doesn't give any context. I'd guess all cities of reasonable size have had a conviction for murder at some point. I think they should either be labeled as members of the West Memphis 3, or just removed from the "notables" list altogether, since anyone who wants additional information on that subject will probably click the West Memphis 3 link anyway.

Just my thoughts - what do you suggest for the next step? I scanned over the dispute resolution article and there seems to be several options. Which do you think is the best for this instance? Thanks! Grothor (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: West Memphis 3

Disagreement about whether the Robin Hood Hills murders should be discussed in this article and/or whether the accused should be referred to as the West Memphis 3.

• As I have stated above, I think a brief mention is appropriate, because the killings were national news and have been the subject of multiple books and films. Clconway (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. A brief mention with a link to the related article is appropriate, since the matter is a historical/cultural event directly related to the city of West Memphis.Grothor (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Uninvolved It is most definitely not part of the Introduction section. Aatomic1 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:West memphis ar seal.GIF

Image:West memphis ar seal.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)