Talk:Killing of Chandra Levy/Archive 1

Joyce Chiang
That whole section needs as source if it's going to imply that Condit was involved. "most theories" are very weasel words. Condit should be removed completely. --Tbeatty 18:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The section isn't implying that. It is, however, implying the same murdered, but that does not have to mean Condit. - Cyborg Ninja 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how someone could see physical similarity between the two women. Brunettes of petite stature? One's Jewish, the other's Chinese. I'm in awe that someone would make such a stretch. - Cyborg Ninja 02:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This section mentions Inspectors Mickey Souris and Don Canard. Is this correct or the work of a vandal? "Souris" is the french word for the english word "mouse" (Mickey Mouse?), while "canard" (is the french word for the english word "duck" (Don(ald) Duck?).MARTIND28 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph
not clear. What "two events?" Is her employment at the Bureau of Prisons one of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.15.89 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Condit's role on House Intelligence Committee
The fact that Condit was a senior member of the House Intel Cmte is of far greater importance to this unsolved murder than similarities with Joyce Chiang, and yet that subject gets several paragraphs. Although Condit's position on the committee was not often mentioned in the media, the fact that this young woman was having an affair with a married man who had considerable oversight on intelligence issues is vitally important. Readers may remember the name Katrina Leung, a Chinese-American woman who had an affair with an FBI agent. In that case, Leung regularly used her access to the agent as a means to view classified documents he carried in his briefcase. An intelligence angle to the Levy investigation has never been reported by any major news organization, but it is no less likely than a serial killer, a topic that regularly receives attention.69.255.0.91 04:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * An intelligence angle to the Levy investigation has never been reported by any major news organization
 * Then it is non-notable, and has no place in this article. Wikipedia is no place for slander or unsourced "allegations", particularly for a person who is not under investigation for the crime. Your drawing a connection between his committee assignment and the affair is original research. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Drawing a connection between Levy's disappearence and Condit's intelligence committee assignment is quite logical, but since it is original research, I didn't include it in the article. However, Condit's commitee assignment in intelligence during the year when America experienced its greatest intelligence failure is responsible to include. The Levy murder remains unsolved after five years.69.255.0.91 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And how did Condit's tenure on the commmittee affect our "greatest intelligence failure"? I don't want to be harsh, but we need citations for this sort of thing, not mysterious implications left hanging. We are an encyclopedia, not a Junior Detective Squad. --Dhartung | Talk 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, again, I didn't put any mysterious questions in the article. Just the fact that Condit was a senior member of the House Intel Cmte. The truth is that if both Condit and Levy were attacked by a Muslim extremist and Levy was killed because she took a bullet for him, the story we see today might still be the same. Because Condit served on the Intel oversight cmte, anything pertaining to him could be censored for national security purposes, including the solution to the Levy murder mystery. I've seen there are some sites on online that cover a lot of details and intrigue about the Levy murder, but I don't really pay them much attention. They are so outlandish that their effect is to squelch legitimate skepticism. So serious questions go unanswered and even unasked because citizens think the only two options are to toe the government line or don a tin foil hat.69.255.0.91 19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just a fact, sure, and it's a verifiable fact, but what relevance can be demonstrated? Condit's committee assignments are relevant in the article about Condit, not in the article about Condit's girlfriend. If you don't have any evidence of relevance, other than guesswork at possible ways to blackmail, then you're engaging in speculation and original research -- drawing conclusions between two facts without a citation to a reliable source. Welcome to Wikipedia, and please feel welcome to contribute, but you must understand why we have policies and guidelines. Among other things, we don't want to be considered "outlandish". You're quite welcome to speculate to your heart's content on a personal blog, but this is an encyclopedia.--Dhartung | Talk 00:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A person's connections to intelligence activity are always relevant when a seemingly random violent crime occurs to them or someone close to them. Military people experience violence mostly on the battlefield and in times of declared war, but intelligence people can fall victim to violence anytime. I was shocked to learn of Condit's intelligence committee appointment when the Levy investigation was first in the news. For whatever reason, the media were not widening their context to include that fact, but it was then and is now highly relevant. Imagine if you picked up a newspaper today and saw that a woman who disappeared without warning or trace had recently concluded a sexual affair with a high ranking figure in intelligence. You would immediately know that information on the disappearence might be filtered through the lens of national security. That's why Condit's committee assignment is relevant to an article on Chandra Levy. For Wikipedia to succeed as an encylopedia then it must have a perspective on events that is more than just what the newspapers say. News organizations produce "the first rough draft" of history, but apparently not the latest rough draft of history.69.255.0.91 17:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You're continuing to argue that original research, that is to say, personal conclusions or suspicions, are permissible. I am telling you that they are not. That is not what we do at Wikipedia, and I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression. There are many places on the web where it is permissible to publish speculation, rumors, or gossip, but Wikipedia is not among them.
 * Finally, Condit was a member of an oversight committee. At best, they know of the existence of classified programs, but they do not have operational details. Read about the limited information that committee chairs were given about the NSA wiretapping, for example. That isn't "a high ranking figure in intelligence"; Condit was a legislator. --Dhartung | Talk 17:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done any of the things you say I've done. Nothing I added to the article references any of the rumors and speculation that surrounded the disappearance. Your example of what intelligence committee members know about operations is post-Levy, and even if it weren't, it would not necessarily hold true in all cases. You say intel cmte members don't usually know about operations? I say interns don't usually disappear without a trace. It is important that people know Condit had direct, long-standing, and powerful responsibilities within the American intelligence establishment. That's an accepted fact. It is not speculation, conjucture, or theory. What always troubled me about this case was the search. They searched the park with K-9s that were trained to detect dehydrating human remains through concrete dust, or the scent of an escaped convict on a trail. All the dogs needed to find in summer 2001 was a body decomposing on top of the underbrush in humid, slow moving air. If a bloodhound can't find a dead body in a park during a Washington summer, what good is it?69.255.0.91 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture
I edited out the picture of her. It was dated 1994--she was 17 years old in that picture. I don't think we need to have pictures of teenagers with their nipples showing thru their shirts. It served no purpose. --Wandering Minstrel
 * Wandering Minstrel, that is the best known photo of Levy, and it has appeared in international news media e.g., so I don't see why it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. The family, I believe, distributed that photo themselves during the search. Also, she's wearing a bra. --Dhartung | Talk 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Turtles?
Was the guy really looking for turtles in the park or is that bit vandalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.13.158 (talk • contribs).
 * Not vandalism. --Dhartung | Talk 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Federal Bureau of Prisons - which office?
Does anyone know which part of BoP Chandra Levy worked in? Acham (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Public Relations office. My first edit - If I need to include a link to best verifiable source for this particular info I can do that.) Ralphdaugherty (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

New sources
Note that the Washington Post is doing a twelve day series on this case, you might find some useful sources there 128.231.88.6 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

question
Should information about the suspect in the case be removed until the suspect has been tried? Yes, it was reported in the paper, but there are members of the jury pool who may be Wikipedians but may not have read about it in the paper. 69.140.153.142 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Racism
Why is that unsubstantiated section on "racist" media coverage in this article. What source proves there are hundreds of black women missing in Washington D.C.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.9.247 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2009

Specialized Consultants
At the strong suggestion of outside "Specialized Consultants", ranging from scientific to psychical professionals. The Rock Creek Park location was re-examined again. Looking deeper into a far more dense wooded area, the police would discover what would later be her remains. In the past, many of these "specialized consultants" have been successful in similar cases before. In a related case, one of these outside "Specialized Consultants" that worked The Levy Case, became involved in California, where three female college students were reported missing. Police would later follow-up on the suggestions. Sadly two of the three female students bodies were discovered buried under the convicted suspects home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aedwardmoch (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 February 2009

visits to Rock Creek Park
This statement has been added to the article which I haven't seen before in past years: Levy had visited the park itself, located near her apartment in northwest Washington, D.C., on many occasions.

Not only is there no basis for this statement, it is critical to the upcoming Guandique trial that false and misleading information like this not be stated in an encyclopedia. Granted, there are any number of reporters who have included variations of this statement unsubstantiated. What we actually know is a quote from a fellow graduate student in DC and her best friend working with her at the BoP, both people with names and quoted multiple times, that Chandra considered the park dangerous. She did not jog and she did not take walks. A nearby park is also dangerously misleading in the way that most people would envision a nearby park.

This is not a nitpick, but instead is quite vital to be correct. This will be covered thoroughly in the Guandique trial of course. I ask that the Wikipedia article not mislead the public on such a critical point of information. (knowing of course that someone put it in there as common knowledge).

Basically there is no source that Chandra was ever in Rock Creek Park, although through a technicality the park runs for miles through DC all the way to Maryland and a park walkway along that corridor below the National Zoo is across the street from Condit's former condo, so she possibly stepped on the walkway at some point visiting Condit. But that's conjecture for whatever conjecture the statement is based on. It shouldn't be in there.

For anyone who read this far, I have basically every citation ever published about Chandra. Here are a few for this:

Modesto woman is missing in Washington, D.C. Jim Herron Zamora, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, May 13, 2001

Friends describe her as spontaneous, clever, always quick to laugh. But Baker noted that Levy was also wary of Washington's high crime rate.

''She never went out alone, Baker said. One reason she joined a health club is so she wouldn't have to jog in the streets there.

end quote

SEARCHING FOR CHANDRA By Thomas Fields-Meyer People June 25, 2001

Since then, police have questioned scores of Chandra's acquaintances and coworkers, scoured e-mail and telephone records and even brought cadaver-sniffing dogs to several locations, '''including the jogging path in Rock Creek Park, where Chandra regularly walked.'''

end quote [note: this is an example of the unsubstantiated claim. - rd]

Cops Search Park for Intern Newsday July 17, 2001

Police swarmed through tall grass yesterday in a park where Chandra Levy often jogged but found only what are thought to be animal bones after a day of searching.

end quote [another example of unsubstantiated claim - rd]

Talk Magazine article on Chandra Levy Lisa DePaulo London Times U.K. August 12, 2001

Levy didn't smoke, had no pets, didn't jog (she was a fitness fanatic, but always at a gym).

end quote [Lisa DePaulo interviewed family and friends for this.]

Do D.C.'s Police or Gary Condit Deserve More Respect?; CNN CROSSFIRE Aired May 23, 2002

[former DC Police Chief] GAINER: We actually spent some three weeks up there with recruits. '''But it is wrong to assume that she was a regular jogger in Rock Creek Park. That is not necessarily true. In fact, the information we have is that she did not often jog outdoors, that she used a treadmill more than Rock Creek.'''

end quote

Sven Jones interview The Early Show CBS May 23, 2002 Thursday

MITCHELL: Rock Creek Park is much like Central Park in New York, an--an--an oasis for city dwellers. Did she enjoy the park and how often did she go out there?

Mr. JONES: We didn't really talk about her visiting parks, and we didn't really talk so much about jogging, either. It was a little bit of a surprise for me, because we have not--neither one of us em--embraced jogging fully, so the park--I'm just not familiar.

end quote

Sven Jones interview O'Reilly May 24, 2002

O'Reilly: It looks like Mr. Jones that Ms. Levy was jogging, but you have said before that she wasn't an avid jogger. Any reaction to that?

Sven Jones: That's correct. '''As we spoke earlier, I didn't see her as somebody that would jog religiously. It was something that would be sort of out of character for her. ''' O'Reilly: Really, so she wasn't somebody who went out on a daily basis and ran around the park where she was discovered.

Jones: She may have done it on occasion, but certainly didn't embrace jogging as something that was personally enriching.

end quote

[Sven Jones and Jennifer Baker were the only two friends Chandra had in DC and both state unequivacably she didn't jog or exercise outdoors. There is no named person who has ever been quoted saying otherwise. - rd]

Levy Possibly Bound by Leggings By Sari Horwitz and Allan Lengel Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, May 25, 2002

Billy Martin, the Washington attorney for the Levy family, discounted the theory that Levy was abducted while jogging in the park.

'''Her friends said she thought it was dangerous and she was very careful what she did, he said. Rock Creek Park was a place that she knew was dangerous, and she discussed it with friends and family. All her friends knew she would not jog in the park. ''' end quote

Condit Lawyer: Lie Test OK By HELEN KENNEDY Daily News Washington Bureau May 30, 2001

'''And there are questions about whether Levy was out jogging at all. The site is 5 miles from her apartment; she usually avoided running in the park. ''' end quote [Helen Kennedy doesn't cite a source fo this. Basically the only people who knew Chandra in DC and were sources were Jennifer Baker and Sven Jones.]

More Evidence Points to Murder in Levy Case WUSA-TV 9 2002

The park is crisscrossed with running trails and was one of Levy's favorite jogging runs.

Friends said Levy frequented the 1,754-acre park, located in Northwest Washington.

(The Associated Press and CBS News contributed to this report.)

end quote

As I've written many times, friends with names said she never jogged and would never go to Rock Creek Park alone. The only ones who are reported to say otherwise are unnamed friends, basically repeating assumptions and speculation. Please let's get that corrected in Wikipedia. Thanks for your time. - rd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphdaugherty (talk • contribs) 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. this is a mess. forgot the tildes and text runs straight out forever. Criminy. Let me put some hard CRLF's in there and sign it and see if that helps. A bunch is in purple, I don't know why, and highlighting for bolding only worked sporadically. What a mess. edited out quotes and leading blanks, acceptable reading at this point -rd Ralphdaugherty (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is removed. Thank you. - rd Ralphdaugherty (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Focus
In cases like this, it is easy to get sidetracked. This article is not a forum about illegal immigration or about Gary Condit's love life or marriage. Similarly, it is not about debating whether Guandique's cellmate is lying. So let's just stick to the facts and the top level analysis from secondary sources. There is no reason to play Perry Mason and get lost in the weeds. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not believe articles should be censored, but I have also added information on the other trial witnesses that are more relevant to the case. KimChee (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't view this as censorship. There is no reason to give such a detailed account of the trial. The article explains that Condit was married, that he at first denied the affair, but later equivocated, and that he refused to answer questions at the trial about his relationship with Levy.  Why go beyond that?  How is finding Condit's DNA at Levy's apartment relevant to the murder, if she left the building on her own without duress? Also, I question whether CNN's coverage is crossing the line into "tabloid" on the story that you reference. Nothing at the crime scene had Condit's DNA. Racepacket (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A Google search of condit dna returns 565 matches from different news sources. I agree to some degree that Condit's involvement should not merit that much attention in the case, but that does not change the amount of focus given to him during the prosecution phase of the trial. On the other hand, I think the section will benefit from additional information about the testimony of the prison witnesses. Either way, I will be happy to support the improvement of the article. KimChee (talk) 05:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you read the stories from the condit+dna google search, you see that they did not find Condit's DNA at the crime scene. (The search condit+DNA+-UFC yields only 68 hits.) Some of the stories are saying that they found DNA of third parties (who are not Condit) at the crime scene.  Given the amount of time that the body was out there and the number of people who were in contact with Chandra Levy when she jogged or worked out at a gym it is not surprising that third party DNA would be on her clothing.  The DNA does not prove a role in her attack, just that people came in contact with her while she wore those clothes.  The defense is trying to distract and confuse, and Wikipedia can report that without being confusing ourselves.  If the jury convicts it is relevant only if it a basis of appeal.  If they jury acquits, it is relevant only if the post-trial interviews indicate that the jury found it significant.  (Look at the trial of OJ Simpson and the "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." summation.  Here, we have not even reached closing statements.) I think that less is more until the trial is over.  Racepacket (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the topic of focus, these are valid points about the trial of Guandique, but the article is about Levy. Would not direct physical evidence of her relationship with a public official be relevant? KimChee (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. Many people have relationships outside of wedlock, some of these involve public figures.  Of these, a number of real or false relationships are reported in the "tabloids."  A rare extra-marital affair is reproted in the "respectable media" such as the New York Times. As I read WP:BLP, an extra-marital affair would be reported in Wikipedia only if it makes the New York Times or comparable media.  The Wikipedia article does report the allegations by Levy's Aunt, the varying responses by Condit, including his refusal to answer those questions under oath at the trial.  If the New York Times covers the DNA on her clothes, I think that Wikipedia should as well. Otherwise, she is not a public figure, and Wikipedia should stay out of her laundry. In sum, the media coverage in 2001 was newsworthy because it drove Condit from office, but the state of her laundry in 2010 is not. Racepacket (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not find any endorsement of "respectable media" in WP:BLP. The only BLP example mentioning the New York Times recommends that if such a paper is the source of an allegation, then the source should be identified in the article. If a laundry rule superseded verifiability on Wikipedia, then some of the articles about presidents would be much shorter. KimChee (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP says "focusing on high quality secondary sources" and "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." Racepacket (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Bureau of Prisons photo
How do we know that Chandra Levy worked in the main DOJ building as opposed to rented office space? The photo of the main building has been added to the article, but it is not clear to me that she worked in that building in 2001. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the BOP website, there is only one central office in Washington, D.C. Sources such as USA Today do not indicate that she worked anywhere else. KimChee (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Today, the Bureau of Prisons is at 500 First Street NW and also 320 First Street NW. I honestly do not know what buildings the Bureau occupied in 2001 or which was Levy's office, but the fact could be researched.  I believe that the photo that you posted is of the old Federal Home Loan Bank Board Building at 392 First Street NW.  It would be a lot of OR if we identified a particular building as the one that was Chandra Levy's work place.  In contrast, there were lots of vigils photographed in front of 1260 21st Street NW, the apartment building where she lived until her disappearance.  I just don't want any WP:SYN. Racepacket (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The BOP uses this photo of the central office on their website today. According to the Internet Archive, that address has not changed since the month Levy's internship started. KimChee (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware of the website photo before I left my first comment. There are at least two different buildings, a block apart. I do not know which building was Chandra Levy's Office.  Do you?  The earliest that I could find was http://web.archive.org/web/20050218053915/http://www.bop.gov/foia/foia_faqs.jsp in 2005.  Do you have a source?  If not, then the image should be deleted. Why not just use a photo of 1260 21st Street? Racepacket (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office, not the central office. This source states that Levy worked in the central office. Is there a free photo of 1260 21st Street in Wikimedia Commons? KimChee (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the source not satisfy your question? Otherwise, can you explain this edit? KimChee (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It did not because I believe that the BOP occupied both 500 First Street NW and 320 First Street NW as their "central office" in 2001, and there are no sources telling us which of those buildings were relevant to Chandra Levy. We can certainly revisit this later after more research, but in the meantime, why don't we both focus on the ongoing GA review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am happy to revisit this now. Do you have first-hand knowledge that Levy worked exclusively in another building such as 500 First Street NW? If so, please help me understand this. Otherwise, how is what you "believe" supposed to override published sources for verifiablity? KimChee (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I think we will have more time to do the necessary research after we finish the GA review, which is expected to be completed "within a day." Again, we should both be looking for a source that identifies in which of the BOP central office buildings Chandra Levy worked. Let's hold off until we find a good source. Thank you for your understanding. Racepacket (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are not yet any comments in the GA review — I commend the reviewer's patience for not quickfailing this on the basis that the trial had not yet concluded. Regarding the discussion at hand, the official government source identifies the 500 First Street address as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office. The same source identifies the 320 First Street as the BOP's central office. This source identified Levy as having been assigned to public affairs, which is a BOP division in the central office. This is already supported by citations in the prose of the article. What is missing here? You have not provided any sources to the contrary. KimChee (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear friend, there are a number of concerns. The FOIA office is a part of BOP's central office/headquarters.  The FOIA office is located at 320 First St, but the BOP library and FOIA reading room are at 500 First Street.  The File:Federal Bureau of Prisons Central office.jpg has an unclear copyright status because we don't know who took the photo.  There was no photo credit on the web page, so although it was uploaded from a federal website, we don't know if it was taken by a federal employee. Just because one of the central office buidings is pictured on the BOP website does not mean that it is the only building or is the building where Chandra Levy worked. Levy worked for the public affairs division and we don't have a source as to which building housed that division in 2001. The Information, Policy, and Public Affairs ("IPPA") Division of BOP includes its library, which is one argument for 500 First Street over 320 First Street. This will take more research, and we need to focus on the GA review now.  Racepacket (talk)
 * I called the public affairs office and the person on the phone said that the BOP central office is in three buildings: 320 First Street, 400 First Street and 500 First Street NW. Her particular office is in 320 First Street. Again, this is not a reliable source. Racepacket (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is entering into WP:OR territory, but I like your intention of verification. If you told me that she said the public affairs office was somewhere other than the 320 address, I still would have taken that into consideration in good faith. Are you in the Washington area? If so, I am curious if something in particular is leading you to doubt the main address. KimChee (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am in the DC area. I am familiar with both 500 First Street and 1260 21st Street. We probably should get a 2001 staff directory. I did not ask her where the Public Affairs offices were in 2001, and as I indicated Public Affairs runs the library which is in 500 First Street.  Racepacket (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This source states that Levy worked directly for BOP spokesman Dan Dunne and [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=10454 this source] states that her internship began at 320 First Street NW. KimChee (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that the mailing address for all of the BOP headquarters is 320 First Street. That does not mean that she worked in 320 building vs. the 400 or 500 building. All the mail goes into one place, so the source cannot be read as saying which building was her office. This is very common with federal agencies, so it will take a 2001 agency phone book to resolve. Racepacket (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an idea for when you find the directory: As U.S. federal documents are in the public domain, you may be able to upload a scanned page to Wikimedia Commons as verifiable reference for citation. KimChee (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ingmar Guandique
Why is there no picture of Ingmar? A cursory Gooogle Image search showed quite a few photos of him. 98.222.180.126 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Those images are not in the public domain. As Guandique is not deceased, the fair use argument does not apply. KimChee (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no link to Ingmar Guandique on the page? 98.222.180.126 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * People notable for only one event are typically redirected to the subject that they are known for (see WP:ONEEVENT). KimChee (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected as I noticed that article started yesterday. If that article reaches consensus not to be merged back into this one, I will add a link. KimChee (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked and the article was mostly a cut-and-paste of this one by a new editor, so the new sentences have been copied back into this one. If there is an objection to the redirect, a discussion can be initiated at Articles for deletion. KimChee (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

An excellent rewrite of this article
I just want to commend the authors who rewrote the Wikipedia article on Chandra Levy. It is an excellent presentation of the facts about Chandra and her murder. kudos for the good work.

Out of all the detail, I have only one small quibble which is worthy to mention in Talk but I'm not aksing for a change to the article. The Justice Department lie detector test using the standard practice of utilizing a Spanish interpreter that Guandique willingly took a few months after Chandra disappeared and before she was found was originally reported as thus:

"But when investigators traveled to North Carolina to interview Guandique, he denied the story - and subsequently passed a polygraph test, according to law enforcement sources. The other inmate failed the polygraph." Washington Post July 14, 2002

"In September 2001, the inmate failed a polygraph test, also administered through an interpreter. Guandique, who denied involvement in the Levy case, passed, the sources said, and authorities felt comfortable that he was not their man." Washington Post September 29, 2002

The results were only later politically changed to undetermined due to the US government agenda of pinning the murder on Guandique. Undetermined was based on at first the standard use of a Spanish translator, and later before the trial the unsubstantiated claim that Guandique practiced for the test.

In any event, neither the passed or undetermined was allowed to be admitted as evidence. With such an excellent article I can live with citing the US government rewrite of history on this as they succeeded in convicting him. I obviously have my problems with that was done but that's a problem with the defense presented and neither here nor there for this article.

Again, my congratulations on a job well done. I saw something about the article being nominated for a good article, and I add my hearty support for that nomination.

Ralph Daugherty Ralphdaugherty (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The most in-depth series of articles to date from The Washington Post stated the following about Guandique's test: "The readings were inconclusive, falling into a gray area between truth and deception. But the official result, a judgment call of the polygraph examiner, was 'not deceptive.'" Either way, the apparent result was that the informant was judged to be less reliable than Guandique, and Guandique was set aside as a lead until 2009. I do agree some details are worth elaborating with clarification in the article, but how would history would be rewritten by the government about a subject this closely covered in the media? KimChee (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * History was rewritten using the Washington Post. That latest you quote is the rewritten history. It was necessary to undermine Guandique passing his lie detector test, and that he passed was unequivocal as quoted above at the time. Then an anonymous source campaign was started to attack and undermine the test, using vague phrases such "flawed test" without citing what the flaw was. This took place starting in late 2002. Nothing was set aside until 2009. DC police starting trying to entrap Guandique in 2004 using pen pal letters, phone calls, etc., never getting any indication that he was guilty or knew anything about it but citing the letters and phone calls as Gaundique wanting to talk about the woman he killed. There was lots of other similar evidence manipulation, directly contradicting what was found and reported at the time, such as Chandra's bracelet given to her by Condit was not actually missing but was found after seven years in her police possessions. Who found it? Same Washinton Post reporter that rewrote the history on the lie detector test (and the Washington Post series in 2008).
 * Ralphdaugherty (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am skeptical that the government would try to influence a newspaper responsible for breaking the Watergate scandal. However, if you can find reliable sources to meet verifiability requirements, go ahead and be our guest. KimChee (talk)


 * Of course none of this belongs in an encyclopedia, but just answering your question. You have done an admirable job of admining this article through the years, especially a controversial subject such as this. A tip of my hat to you.
 * Ralphdaugherty (talk) 04:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are happy with the current version, we will not change it in light of your concerns. Racepacket (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

illegal alien vs. undocumented worker
Why is the convicted killer referred to as an "undocumented worker". This is a poorly defined term of political advocacy and bias. Who was he undocumented by? What was his work/job .... crime? "Illegal alien" is the commonly used term in conversation and law to describe his status in the USA. This term is clearly defined in Wikipedia.

It is also offensive to group this criminal with all the well intentioned immigrants who have come to the USA to make a better life for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.80.103 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The term "illegal alien" is not explicitly used in U.S. law. However, The New York Times and The Washington Post both used the term "illegal immigrant". Any thoughts on this? KimChee (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Chandra Levy. The MSNBC/Associated Press story described him as a "Salvadoran immigrant." The legality of his status is secondary in the Levy biography. I think that we have a rather neutral, non-judgmental term which does not adopt a POV on the debate surrounding immigration policy. Racepacket (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not found any mention of Guandique holding a steady job from reliable published sources. Perhaps "undocumented immigrant" may be a more appropriate term in this case. KimChee (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with the term "illegal alien"? It is defined on Wikipedia. He is clearly not an "undocumented immigrant" He is very well documented by the US legal system... mug shots, finger prints, DNA samples, and cell number and serial number. It would be hard for a person to be better "documented" than he. This is an encylopedia. Why your insistence on PC crap made up words and your objection to the legitimate term well defined elsewhere on wikipedia and generally accepted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.80.103 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is no article on Wikipedia for "illegal alien"; that term redirects to Alien (law). If you check that article's section on jurisdictions, the term "illegal alien" is not defined under U.S. federal law, and immigrants are considered a subset of aliens. Wikipedia strives for no particular point of view, other than a neutral one. KimChee (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So you agree: 1) illegal alien is defined in the article on Alien Law. No one ever said each term had to have it's own headline, 2) you must agree that this criminal is well ducumented at this point, 3) finally, illegal alien is a legal term. Courts and lawyers do not "own" the law.  Citizens can have legal terms of their own and illegal alien is precisely defined on Wikipedia as a legal term for use of the citizenry.  Finally, he is not an "immigrant".  An immigrant is one whO plans to "settle" in another country.  "Settling" was clearly never his intent as he chose a life of crime with the knowledged that he would be subject to imprisonment and deportation if caught.  He now faces a prison sentence and deportation should he ever complete his sentence.  I.e. he never properly aspired to "settle" and never will be able to "settle".  Illegal alien is a neutral word.  Illegal means counter to the law.  Alien means from another country.  Completely neutral.  As a decendant of immigrants, I find using that word in conjunction with this criminal biased and stilted and offensive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.80.103 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. The Alien (law) article mentions the term "illegal alien" to specify that it is not explicitly defined under U.S. law. 2. United Press International uses the term "undocumented immigrant" to describe Guandique. I think it is meant to refer to the lack of an application for an immigrant's entry into a country. 3. How does legal status have anything to do with one's aspirations to "settle" in another country? According to the article's edit history, several other editors disagree with you regarding the neutrality of the term "illegal alien". KimChee (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Alien (law) section: "illegal alien" ... is used in many statutes[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] and elsewhere (e.g., court cases, executive orders).    None of the terms you prefer are well defined.  I can't find a single definition of what exactly makes a person "undocumented".

President Obama used "illegal immigrant" in his Health Care speech to Congress. Maybe we could settle on "illegal immigrant"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.80.103 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post story that report the conviction also used the term "illegal immigrant" See:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112203633.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.80.103 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That speech is unrelated to this article. However, you have a better argument regarding press usage as The Associate Press used the term "illegal immigrant" in context with this case. The only opposition I could find to its usage was from an anonymous IP who I think made a weak argument: "Undocumented should be used in place of illegal, as no human being is illegal." KimChee (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I found that the term "illegal immigrant" has been designated as a legal status of a person, so I will apply it and see what discussion is raised here. KimChee (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How is his immigration status possibly of relevance to this article? It does not matter to Chandra Levy. Racepacket (talk) 07:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On that line of reasoning, Guandique's Salvadoran nationality did not factor into his guilt or innocence in the Levy case, so why include that? I do not see any reason not to include a summarized description of Levy's convicted killer. His immigration status was raised as an issue by the conservative media. While I do not always agree with partisan media, the issue is part of the published discourse in the criticism of her homicide investigation. KimChee (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please let the IP speak for himself. Racepacket (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My previous response was to you, not the IP. KimChee (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I want to hear what the IP has to say. I understand that you are making some assumptions about his reasoning, but it is best if he is allowed to state his own case, and we can decide after we hear him out. Racepacket (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Upon reading the essay WP:Use plain English, I have actually changed my mind. I think "illegal immigrant/alien" should be kept in the Criticism of media coverage section as that is the term used by the media, but I will edit the wording in the rest of the article to reflect Guandique's actions without using the label. KimChee (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC) / 10:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is a proper time to use a quotation. Racepacket (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that there is a linkable Guandique page, I would be fine with having the "illegal immigrant" status appear there only. It should appear one place or the other.  This was the one piece of info I was seeking when I came to the Chandra Levy page in the first place, but clicking an extra link is not a problem.  Also, I notice that this page seeks status as a model page.  One obvious critique is that it lacks references for negative information about Guandique such as his reputed MS-13 membership and his illegal immigration status.  I found Washington Post and USA Today refs in about two seconds, both using the exact term "illegal immigrant", but am not yet up to the task of adding them. The IP24.62.80.103 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ingmar Guandique presently redirects to the Chandra Levy article per WP:ONEEVENT. A comment regarding this was left at Talk:Ingmar Guandique KimChee (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quotations
Encyclopedic writing minimizes the use of quotations compared with news writing. I took out two quotes which seemed directed more toward emotions than facts. Encyclopedias assume that parents grieve for the loss of their children, and we don't need to quote them on that subject. I am also troubled by the quote from Condit's attorney. It assumes that Condit lost the election because the voters thought that he had killed Levy. It is equally possible that he lost the election because voters were troubled by the possibly affair between Condit and Levy, or for some other reason. Racepacket (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of WP:QUOTE states that "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia." There are featured articles with more quotes than this as "provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit". Editors should not let personal opinions influence material, including quotes, that is otherwise verifiable and in proper context of the article. KimChee (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP requires us word text so that "material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." Quotes from a mourning mother does not meet that test.  We need to report what happened dispassionately and conservatively.  Some of the quotes in question are passionate, POV and take liberties. Racepacket (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." WP:QUOTE Racepacket (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in Wikilawyering this as the article is not about the trial of Guandique. The guideline from Criticism and praise is directed to editors to avoid giving disproportionate space to tiny minorities. What rhetoric from the mother's statement, "There's always going to be a feeling of sadness. I can surely tell you, it ain't closure." is it that you believe fails a "test"? KimChee (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The pictures and quotes is an interesting style philosophy point. I thought the quote from the mother was a nice ending touch, but as I see from racepacket's points, encyclopedia articles don't have touches. Same is true for pictures which add quite a bit to readability but which are decorative touches, especially on the timeliness of recent news. To be honest with you the stuff on Guandique and prison pictures really belong in an article on Guandique but probably don't want to give that much credit to convicted criminals. Some of that is also true in how an article on Chandra becomes an article on her convicted murderer due to recent news. If long ago, it would be a one sentence addition to a biography, right?
 * Ralphdaugherty (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you on some details regarding Guandique if there were a separate article, but right now Ingmar Guandique redirects to this article as it does not appear his notability has met the threshold of WP:ONEEVENT. Regarding encyclopedic style, WP:Use plain English is an excellent essay. KimChee (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So that's where philosophy comes in because Wikipedia is so much more, people coming for info to understand news, and as such, was well presented, quotes and pictures and all, although I agree with removal of Condit's lawyer quote because yes, reason for removal from office were for other reasons as well as racepacket noted.
 * Ralphdaugherty (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is actually in the Condit article, so I don't have a particular opposition to its removal. However, it is his attorney's condemnation of Condit being tried in the media. I do not know in specific detail how his constituents felt about him on election day, but here is a poll that was conducted in 2001. KimChee (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about the use of quotations. For example, I have retained the quote from Gladys Weatherspoon, but identified her as Guandique's former defense attorney. I question whether "pull quotes" are appropriate for this article. Pull quotes are used in newspapers to break up large grey areas of type and draw readers who are skimming the paper into a particular story. That is not the case with Wikipedia. You have plunked down pull quotes without identifying when the quotation was made or its context. Racepacket (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Timing of GA Review
While I like to see articles promoted, I strongly believe that stability (not counting vandalism) should come naturally, not by requesting other editors to "back off". I believe the problem lies more in that the GA nomination may have been premature, as the article at that time was too short, had only one photo which did not have a proper fair use template, lacked citations in a number of places, and needed some rewriting to address copyvio problems. I only seek to improve the article. I hope you understand. Cirt should be commended for the display of patience. KimChee (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my talk page for the original context of my response as the beginning of this transcribed thread has been deleted. KimChee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better coordination of collective effort would be not to judge what material from one another to exclude, but to present it all to the GA reviewer and let the process proceed naturally? KimChee (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I take it that the fact that the article was nominated for GA drew you to it? I think that the article met the GA criteria when it was nominated. Racepacket (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. I follow related topics as part of WP:CRIME. As the article was nominated for GA review, I felt the version at that time was in need of improvement (see above). KimChee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we find a senior, experienced editor to arbitrate the issues of:
 * Are the prison photos relevant to the article?
 * I think the one in Kentucky would be relevant as that is where Guandique met the prosecution witness. I am, however, concerned that an anonymous IP consistent with the timing of your activity has been submitting deletion requests for other editors' images in the midst of this discussion. I do hope that it is not you as I would find the use of a sock in poor taste. KimChee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we use the photo of 320 First Street given the current level of sources available?
 * I think so. I have not seen any evidence to convince me of the contrary. KimChee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Should we include the pull quotes as pull quotes or integrate them into the prose of the article?
 * I am amenable to that. I will approach that after a conservative copyedit pass to clean up formatting. KimChee (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We both agree in advance to abide by the abitrator's decision. In this manner we can avoid an edit war and get the GA review concluded.
 * Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This now appears to be moot as Cirt has proceeded with the review. KimChee (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Condit polling data
A few days ago, someone added a July 2001 Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll which gave results both on a nation-wide basis and on responses from Condit's congressional district. I amended that to include mention that the responses from Condit's congressional district were more favorable than those outside his district. Now, someone has deleted that fact (which is important to a balanced presentation of the poll) and instead added a September 2001 Field Poll of just his congressional district. Opinon polls are taken in many congressional races and are routinely reported in the Wikipedia article covering the particular election. Here the first poll specifically asking "Do you think that Condit had something to do with Levy's disappearance?" (44% of the national responses were yes, but only 22% of the 18 CD responses said yes). The September poll did not ask about Chandra Levy, but rather asked about whether Condit should resign or should run again. We don't know who paid for the second poll. Isn't this WP:SYN by deleting the 18 CD results from the description of the first poll and then adding the second poll in its place? At this point, do Wikipedia users really care how much public opinion shifted (if any) between July and September 2001, not that polls asking very different questions could measure that? What relevance does polling data have to the section entitled "Relationship with Condit"? Are some polls (those asking if Condit was responsible for the disappearance) more relevant than others (those asking who will win the next election)? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is my error. I read through the prose of the article, but did not see the tables in my browser, so I mistakenly assumed the text about Condit's home district to be unsourced. The other article was the closest I could find in which that was discussed, but is now unnecessary. KimChee (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

BOP data
Once Ingmar Guandique enters the Federal Bureau of Prisons (people who commit felonies in DC are sent to BOP facilities), get ready to get his BOP data (so we know what prison he's incarcerated in, etc)

While under most circumstances primary source material is discouraged and/or prohibited as per WP:BLP, in this case it is supporting information related to an adult felony conviction so it is okay to report on what prison Guandique is placed in. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure it will be reported in the media. Ever since the Watergate felons went to "camp" the media follows where people like Bernie Madoff go. I will watch it and be sure to report it. Racepacket (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good - Also the BOP records contain the BOP ID number. If he doesn't get life, his tentative release date will be listed too. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are D.C. agencies, such as the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, run by the federal government? If so, would that affect the copyright status of Guandique's mug shot? KimChee (talk) 12:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I double-checked at the media copyright page, and works of the D.C. municipal government are not considered to be in the public domain. Perhaps the Federal Bureau of Prisons may take a newer booking photo. KimChee (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Guandique photos that I saw carried an AP attribution. It may be just a question of getting a permission.  Guandique was in the Big Sandy federal prison for some time. Racepacket (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the early AP images and they have originated from his original booking in D.C. Guandique's more recent photos look very different. KimChee (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
As the talk page has exceeded 80 kilobytes, I have started automatic archiving of this page. KimChee (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced photos
I have also deleted the recently added photo of the Big Sandy prison watch tower in Kentucky because it has a very remote connection to this article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am concerned that you are continuing to delete photos without clear justification. If I had no choice but to delete a prison photo, I would have opted for the California prison, as the Kentucky prison is where Morales heard Gaundique's confession that directly affected the verdict of the case. Also, have you provided a verifiable source that Levy did not work at 320 First Street? KimChee (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is whether we have found any building-specific source as to where Levy worked. If this were just text, we can say she worked at the Bureau of Prison Headquarters in its Division of Public Affairs.  But with a photo, we have to 1) come up with a specific building or a photo which shows all three buildings, and 2) document and defend our rights to include the photo on wikipedia. I have not seen any sources that show that she worked in the 320 First Street building. Showing a photo of 320 First Street as Levy's workplace is WP:SYN. As to the photo being "sourced," we still do not know who took the photos and whether they are copyrighted by the photographer. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That photo of the central office was taken by another Wikipedian and is free of copyright. How would it be synthesis if [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=10454 this source] states she worked "at 320 1st St. N.W., near the Capitol"? If you could present published sources to directly contradict this, I would be more open to your point of view. KimChee (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed that you switched photos. The source gave the postal address of the bureau of prisons.  It did not say that of the three buildings, Chandra worked in the 320 building. For example, it could have said "Chandra Levy's office was in 320 First Street."  But, because it was written more than a year after Levy left her job, there would have been little reason to track it down to the building-level of detail.  The only reason why anyone cares which building held Levy's office was because of the desire to run a photo of the outside of the building.  Until we know where Levy worked, we should avoid any claim to know which photo is correct. Racepacket (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The photograph of the BOP central office is well done. It is better than the picture at the same angle on the BOP home page, which is also where the address in question is authoritatively given. It list the eight divisions including Public Affairs as in the Central Office and says it's a campus. racepacket mentions three buildings. I'm not sure how getting a picture at some angle of some nondescipt building that may be a different building behind the one pictured is more helpful. I would say less helpful if it's a side of a building. Having an independently sourced (and better) picture that the BOP itself displays on it's home page is a real plus in my opinion.
 * Ralphdaugherty (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ralph: The BOP central office has three buildings with the street addresses of 320, 400 and 500 First Street NW. All mail is addressed to 320 First Street NW and then distributed from a central point in there to all three buildings.  In 2001, the Public Affairs division had offices in at least the 320 and 500 building, but we don't know which building held Chandra Levy's office. I don't mind if we determine the correct building and then run a photo of it.  I suggest we use a photo taken by a Wikipedia volunteer rather than the one that KimChee has uploaded, because we don't know who took that photograph or whether it is copyrighted. The website you mention just gives the mailing address of the BOP central office. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am troubled by the "sources" offered for the captions. The captions contained factual sentences about the Chandra Levy case with a footnote to a source about the fact in the sentence. It is misleading the reader to believe that the source linked that picture to that fact. These photos did not appear in the sources provided. In four of the photos included in the article, there is very little connection between what is in the photo and the Chandra Levy case. The photos decorate the page instead of providing information to the reader. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks for the explanation, racepacket. This should help narrow it down:

D.C. Intern Lived On Edge of Secrecy By Donna St. George, Allan Lengel and Petula Dvorak Washington Post Sunday, July 8, 2001 Always self-directed, Levy had landed her internship -- salaried at $27,000 a year -- in the public affairs office of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons before she ever set foot in the city... If she went to Washington, she told Dan Dunne, a supervisor at the prisons bureau, she didn't want just any job. She wanted a job that would teach her something, advance her career... At her new office on the sixth floor, the hazel-eyed newcomer fielded phone calls and did computer research for the agency that manages the nation's 98 federal prisons and 130,000 inmates. She had no contact with inmates. end quote
 * I included the other sentences FYI to put the her new office on sixth floor in context. Didn't give a specific building or street address in article.

Ralphdaugherty (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. All three buildings, 320, 400 and 500 have a sixth floor.  The Division of Public Affairs had space in both the 320 and 500 buildings. Racepacket (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I received the following response from info@usdoj.gov:


 * The above was in response to the following inquiry sent to info@bop.gov:


 * This appears to clear doubt of the [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=10454 aforementioned source] that the Public Affairs department to which Levy was assigned is in fact located at 320 First Street. I will reinstate the photos that have also cleared deletion review by administrators at Wikimedia Commons. KimChee (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed the photo was deleted again under the pretense that "we still don't know if this is the building". It has been confirmed that [ http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=10572 Levy worked directly for Daniel Dunne in Public Affairs], and as mentioned above, she worked on the sixth floor. Upon checking federal directories, Daniel Dunne's office number is 629 in the HOLC building. This is the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) building. Upon contacting the BOP, they confirmed the department's location at this address has not been changed. Did I miss something? KimChee (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this image from Life magazine confirms where Chandra Levy worked. The original page at Life has expired, though it still can be found in a Google search. KimChee (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that your recent email inquiry suffers from the same problem as the earlier ones, namely confusion between mailing address and specific buildings' street addresses. I have sent another inquiry to info@bop.gov asking which of the three buildings and they have referred it to the public relations office for a response. Again, we know that the Public Affairs Division had offices in both the 320 building and the 500 building. Interns frequently have offices far away from the people for whom they work. I will report back when I get a response. Racepacket (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think additional verification is perfectly fine, but the gathered references have been reinforcing that Levy has worked at this address, not to the contrary. KimChee (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, do you read the email from info@bop.gov as discussing the mailing address 320 First Street or the street address? I read it as mailing address. I have looked at what you have gathered and I find nothing that goes beyond the mailing address to reach the level of which building. I appreciate your work on this, but I don't think we have a reliable source at this time. Racepacket (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been checking with the BOP and the copyright status of the photos are still under review by their General Counsel's office. I still have not found anything that indicates that the street address where Chandra Levy worked was the 320 building, and we know that the Public Affairs Division had offices in both the 320 and 500 buildings. Racepacket (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)