Talk:Robert Chambers (criminal)

message: New York doesn't have a three strikes law.  I deleted the inaccurate text.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.100.52 (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law 

message: Note:  The article mentioned "York School in Manhattan".  Yet, the only York School in Wikipedia is York School (California) (which used to be just York School till I renamed it).  So, I removed the link.  I don't think its that important to the article, but I just don't want a misplaced link. --Rob 14:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is York Preparatory School.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  School 

message: Is it proper that Chambers is prominently described and also categorized as a "murderer", even though he was never convicted of murder? AxelBoldt 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't.  The term murderer should not be used so as to avoid liability for libel.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect to targeter, this is completely false.  Manslaughter is by definition not murder.  Murder requires specific intent, and manslaughter doesn't.  It doesn't just decrease liability or act as a "defense" under New York law--it is a different offense with different elements.  Obviously, Robert Chambers killed someone.  But use of the term "murderEven the law itself (that targeter is referring to above), talking about extreme emotional disturbance, says that such acts "do not constitute murder."Under defamation law, Wikipedia AND individual editors could potentially be liable for using the word murderer.  It would best be avoided.--Bibliophylax 15:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murderer? 

message: The article says that Chambers was stopped in his car for driving with a suspdended driver's license. I'm not sure how that can happen, or whether the correct information is available.
: I am confused by your post.  Why do you say that you are not sure how this could happen?  That is, that he was stopped in his car for driving with a suspended driver's license. That is quite commonplace.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  License 

message: According to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/4.html, his mother is from County Leitrim, which is in northern Ireland but not Northern Ireland. I'm changing it accordingly. —Angr 09:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: I've not seen anything in the WP:MOS that linking to a category is against any policy/guideline. I have however seen mention of why American murderers should NOT be linked: Only make links that are relevant to the context#What generally should not be linked. The logic of linking to the United States and murderers is flawed, while a reader may be interested in other murderers it's less clear why they'd want to know about the history of his country? On the other hand it seems much more likely that most readers would be more interested in other American murderers. Anynobody 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories belong at the bottom of the page, not linked in-line. Link if it suits your fancy, but do it in the right place. - Nunh-huh 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's by convention (i.e. consensus). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Category. If you've seen categories sprinkeled about in other articles rather than added to the end, please point me towards them.  - Nunh-huh 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You probably missed the part where it says that by convention, the links are added at the end. In any case, you're going at this backwards: pages describe policy by describing what the actual practice is, they don't dictate policy. If what is practiced is inadequately covered by a policy page, it's the policy page that changes, not the practice. I don't think you'll find many (perhaps no) articles that contain categories in their first sentences. - Nunh-huh 05:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Try the link I actually gave, rather than the one you mistook it for. It's not WP:CAT, it's Help:Category. Now, since you've avoided it so far, can you point me to other articles in which people have placed links to categories in the first sentence? Is this something you thought up all by yourself, or is someone else doing it? - Nunh-huh 08:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What on earth are you talking about? I gave a direct link to the page I was referencing, and it wasn't WP:CAT, no matter how easily it can be reached from the referenced page.  I take it you don't know of any instances of anyone other than you putting a category link in the first sentence of articles? - Nunh-huh 11:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I take it then that you don't know of any instances of anyone other than you putting a category link in the first sentence of articles? - Nunh-huh 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The principle of least surprise is that links shouldn't take the reader someplace unexpected. Category links such as you placed take the reader someplace unexpected, while they don't, if placed properly, at the bottom, where they are marked as categories. That the particular page you've chosen to heed doesn't explicitly forbid an idea doesn't mean it's not a bad idea. I suppose the way to find out if other editors agree with you is to continue to place such links and see how often they are reverted.  I gather that you don't recall the specific article in which you saw the only other instance of this aberration, so we can see if it was reverted. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A link to a list not labeled as such is a surprise. Whether you can find it mentioned or not, the principle of least surprise has been a standard of linking here since the beginning. Again, if you want to indulge your mistaken impression that what isn't mentioned on guideline pages or policy somehow is invalid, feel free to make your changes and see if they  last. Wikilawyering is not going to get you the answer, nor are specious mistatements about what I "acknowledge". If you have a serious doubt about the propriety of disguised links to categories, formulate a request for comments. - Nunh-huh 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You seem to think that policy is made on policy pages. It isn't. It's described there. And we have no conflict over your category, only where it belongs, so your last comment is irrelevant. - - Nunh-huh 02:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: (PS I'm not asking to be spiteful, seriously if I am wrong I'd like to know the correct answer.) Anynobody 10:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: When "policy pages" differ from preferred practice, it's the pages that get changed, not the practice. See the recent dustup over spoilers. - Nunh-huh 12:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: You miss the point entirely. There are lots of practices that have not been documented in policy or guideline pages. The only time things get put there is when someone departs from them. The pages are not legislation, they're description.  So if you decide to persist in your unconventional linking, I am sure that addenda will be made to the required pages. Exactly what those addenda will say will depend on whether others agree with or disagree with your opinion on the matter. - Nunh-huh 03:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:American murderers]] 

message: The present article title is one of the holdovers of Wikipedia's enthusiastic amateur early days: "Robert Chambers (killer)" indeed! The common convention in biographical entries, familiar to  those who have looked into some, would be Robert Chambers (1966 — ) --Wetman 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Familiar to whom?  Maybe those who've looked into dusty library card catalogs, but not to those who browse Wikipedia.  It's quite common to use a parenthetical remark to distinguish among different articles.  We don't just have Robert Chambers (killer), we have Robert Chambers (oarsman).  Why do we do this?  Because it is the official naming convention in Wikipedia.  Why is it the official convention?  Because it is a lot of more useful to general interest readers and web searchers who aren't going to know the year of birth of the person they are looking for, but will know his claim to fame.The article title should stay as is.  In the alternative, I'd support changing "killer" to "criminal" since his notability now extends beyond the "preppy murder."--Bibliophylax 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jim Michael (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Title: [[Robert Chambers (1966 — )]]

message: What was it? Imagine Reason (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Never determined.  Prosecutors did not have a motive that they could offer up at his trial.  However, on a TV interview, the prosecutor said that her best guess was that Chambers and Levin were engaged in a heated argument.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Police have speculated that it might have been a robbery,  as Chambers had a reputation for robbing the girls whom he had dated. On the night she was killed, Jennifer was wearing expensive earrings, and had a lot of money on her person. When her body was found the next morning, her earrings were missing, as was her cash.--Splashen (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive of the murder 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Diannaa (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Robert Chambers (criminal). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026065357/http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/7.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/not_guilty/park/7.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says Jennifer Levin did not keep a "sex diary."  What exactly does this mean?  Does this mean she had no diary that discussed sex at all?  If that's correct, how do we know this for certain, and furthermore, why was the defense so eager to get access to this book if it didn't discuss sex at all?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suziewang123 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: From the article:  The defense sought to depict Levin as a promiscuous woman who kept a "sex diary"; however, no such diary existed. Levin, instead, kept a small notebook that contained the names and phone numbers of her friends and notations of ordinary appointments. Such tactics were met with public outrage, with protesters (some calling themselves "Justice for Jennifer") demonstrating outside the courtroom.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The diary 

message: I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: In April 1988, the tabloid television program A Current Affair broadcast a home video showing Chambers at a party when he was free on bail. He was shown in the video playing with four lingerie-clad girls, choking himself with his hands while making loud gagging noises, and twisting a Barbie doll's head off, saying in falsetto: "My name is ... Oops! I think I killed it."
Chambers served most of his 15-year sentence at Auburn State Prison, but was later moved to Clinton Correctional Facility due to several infractions, which cost him all his time off for good behavior. He assaulted a correctional officer and was cited repeatedly for weapons and drug infractions, some of which resulted in additional criminal charges. Ellen Levin, Jennifer Levin's mother, also petitioned to have his parole denied. Nearly five years of Chambers' term were served in Detention/Segregation.
After leaving prison, Chambers settled in Dalton, Georgia, with his girlfriend Shawn Kovell, who had appeared in the Barbie doll video made before his sentencing. The two lived there for eight to nine months. He found a job at the Pentafab dye factory. Chambers and Kovell moved to an East 57th Street Sutton Place, Manhattan, apartment in New York City, when the death of Kovell's mother in late 2003 left it vacant. Chambers found a job at a limousine company in Queens, and later in a New Jersey sports trophy manufacturer's engraving plant.
===Drug charges===
Shortly before Thanksgiving 2004, Chambers was stopped in his Saab for driving with a suspended driver's license on Harlem River Drive at 139th Street. A search of the car he was driving found glassine envelopes containing an unknown substance. Chambers was charged on November 29, 2004, with possession of heroin and cocaine, driving with a suspended license, and driving a car without a valid inspection sticker.
</blockquote>
:That makes sense, but currently the article is incoherent. I tried to read it and couldn't understand what was going on at all. There are, for example, currently multiple references to "the bar", which was never previously mentioned, and appearances by people who were never introduced. Is this material worth salvaging, or should I go ahead with some WP:BB text removal until someone wants to properly rewrite this narrative? I don't want to reduce the page too much if it will make it harder for someone to fix this text and return it to the article, but I also dislike reading and writing about true crime so I'm not interested in spending the time to create an elabourate well-cited narrative to this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I failed to fix the surrounding text when removing the uncited portions. I've now corrected it by providing some contextual explanation to the "bar" passage. If you see other areas where this can be fixed, then by all means do so. But another way to fix this is to find citations for the uncited material that I moved here. Thanks for presenting your critical viewpoint. :) Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Shortly before Thanksgiving 2004, Chambers was stopped in his Saab for driving with a suspended driver's license on Harlem River Drive at 139th Street. A search of the car he was driving found glassine envelopes containing an unknown substance. Chambers was charged on November 29, 2004, with possession of heroin and cocaine, driving with a suspended license, and driving a car without a valid inspection sticker.
</blockquote>
:That makes sense, but currently the article is incoherent. I tried to read it and couldn't understand what was going on at all. There are, for example, currently multiple references to "the bar", which was never previously mentioned, and appearances by people who were never introduced. Is this material worth salvaging, or should I go ahead with some WP:BB text removal until someone wants to properly rewrite this narrative? I don't want to reduce the page too much if it will make it harder for someone to fix this text and return it to the article, but I also dislike reading and writing about true crime so I'm not interested in spending the time to create an elabourate well-cited narrative to this page. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize if I failed to fix the surrounding text when removing the uncited portions. I've now corrected it by providing some contextual explanation to the "bar" passage. If you see other areas where this can be fixed, then by all means do so. But another way to fix this is to find citations for the uncited material that I moved here. Thanks for presenting your critical viewpoint. :) Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug charges

message: He killed to get what he wanted and couldn't have, and his motive is evil.
He doesn't know what it means to be loved or how to love.
His motive is evil. I'm not opposed to euthanizing a rabid dog. 2601:548:4204:9F70:5DA2:DA67:A142:CDE7 (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narcissists never change