Talk:Murder of Imette St. Guillen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know how[edit]

. . . to fix the link to the Falls. Right now it goes to a 1980 movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.58.18 (talk • contribs)

Although this is a late reply, anyone reading the Imette St. Guillen page completely will read that The Falls bar is closed; replaced by the Midnight Cafe at the same location. There is no need to create a Wikipedia listing for The Falls.--MurderWatcher1 21:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit[edit]

Can anybody explain why the St. Guillen family is suing the state and federal authorities? MK2 08:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a late reply to this valid question. The St. Guillen family is suing because state and federal authorities failed in their duty to prevent the hiring of, not one but two ex-con bouncers at The Falls bar. The State Liquor Authority 'dragged it's feet' in immediately closing the bar (from March to June, 2006). Any 'system' that was in place to protect people at bars became very questionable, especially with the further death of Jennifer Moore. Check out the Nightlife Legislation section of the page.--MurderWatcher1 21:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hispanic[edit]

Can anyone explain why in all those news reports not once was it mentioned that Imette St. Guillen was Hispanic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.103.196 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm answering this rather valid question late as, it was inserted afterwards. Specifically, Maureen St. Guillen hails from Venezuela, thus the later Venezuelan mention on Imette's page.--MurderWatcher1 21:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Spanish references[edit]

I'm moving to the talk page because unless they add something to the article that the multiple english references don't they don't really belong on there and would be better off on a spanish language article on Imette St. Guillen.

--ImmortalGoddezz 14:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. FYI, I don't speak Spanish but I did get a few of these articles and felt they were important to anyone of Hispanic descent.--MurderWatcher1 16:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife legislation[edit]

To Immortal Godezz. In regards to Nightlife Legislation being a separate topic, I had some second thoughts. I am concerned about it being a separate topic because it might detract from Imette's Wiki reference and some people 'speed reading' through her story might not understand the significance and impact of her death on New York Nightlife. Also, if it's separated, it should read "New York City Nightlife Legislation" as, other nightlife issues may crop up in other cities.--MurderWatcher1 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my mind on this. Working on a Nightlife Legislation Wiki page in my sandbox. Will split this section, as well as the Nightlife Legislation section from St. Guillen's and Jennifer Moore's wiki pages. This will make room for the upcoming trials for both women.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Dorrian-Related News[edit]

This was in the New York Post, Saturday, Sept. 8, 2007:

New York Post, Saturday, September 8, 2007

Website: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09082007/news/regionalnews/barkeep_slapped_on_the_hand.htm

BARKEEP SLAPPED ON THE 'HAND'

By LAURA ITALIANO

September 8, 2007 -- Barkeep James Dorrian got a no-jail break and a scolding at his sentencing yesterday for literally throwing a complaining customer out of his family's flagship Upper East Side bar.


"You'd better remember the day you made your mother cry," Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Neil Ross told Dorrian as his mom, dad, sister and uncle sobbed, apparently relieved he wouldn't be carted off to jail.


Dorrian, 31, was crying himself. He'd faced up to a year behind bars for his misdemeanor May 2006 attack on a drunken film editor at Dorrian's Red Hand on Second Avenue.


Instead, he got three years of probation, 10 days of community service and anger-management counseling.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MurderWatcher1 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Song: "Pioneer to the Falls[edit]

Someone added a link to the band, Interpol, and their new song "Pioneer to the Falls". I just listened to the lyrics but I'll need more information for that to stay on the page. The song could refer, from its lyrics, to almost anything. Here's a website to listen to the song for anyone interested:

Thank you for your help.--MurderWatcher1 19:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: Smakbot took care of that!--38.117.139.174 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mummy Maniac[edit]

This doesn't deserve it's own section because it's only been referred to in one newspaper; perhaps if it had been picked up by more then one and it had been pinned to the murder as his moniker then it would deserve it's own section, however it only merits a small mention in the article itself. Also stop using blockquotes; they're unnecessary. Rewrite the information yourself and cite it. Blockquotes, the way they're being used here, just add a lot of unnecessary or repetitive information to the article. What is left when you take away the non-necessary or repeated information is a sentence or two at most that can be rewritten and cited. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Advice to other young women[edit]

This article, which is more opinion than fact (and someone might call this a blog but it isn't) appeared in:

"The Evening Sun" Chenango County's Hometown Daily

Website: http://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2007-12-20/3341/Knock-Out-Drops/

Knock Out Drops

By: Shelly Reuben, Columnist

Published: December 20th, 2007


If this article saves one person's life, then it's worth it!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Blog so I'll put it here - Interesting[edit]

The Villager

Volume 77 / Number 37 - Feb. 13 - 19, 2008 West and East Village, Chelsea, Soho, Noho, Little Italy, Chinatown and Lower East Side, Since 1933

Website: http://www.thevillager.com/villager_250/scoopysnotebook.html

Scoopy's Notebook

Wrecking peace and quiet: Word from Sean Sweeney, the Soho Alliance’s director, is that sleepy Sullivan St. is being plagued by noise from an illegal nightclub being operated in a building owned by John Zaccaro, Geraldine Ferraro’s husband. The club is on the ground floor of a residential building, 73-75 Sullivan St., replacing a ravioli shop that was a neighborhood favorite. By day it’s a funky boutique, the Wreck Center, but by night it’s hosting a series of invite-only book signings, launch parties, art and music shows, even stand-up comedy, according to The New York Times. Sweeney pointedly noted that another Zaccaro tenant was The Falls on Lafayette St., a bouncer from which, Darryl Littlejohn, is accused of killing patron Imette St. Guillen, who was last seen alive at the notorious bar. At least the Wreck Center will be gone by month’s end, when the building is torn down for new construction, the Times reports.

--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

I have trimmed this since this need not be a link farm. This is not vandalism. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes section[edit]

I have removed some questionable sites. Thank you --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I agree with the previous editor. You ARE vandalising! But unlike him, I'm going to trace your I.P. and find out who you are![reply]

I leave Wikipedia for a few days and receive what? What is this nonsense? Again you don't understand the page; you weren't involved in St. Guillen's case; I WAS! You took out a link which I have restored because you didn't adequately investigate it! You understand nothing and what is this other comment above. Is it from you or someone else?

You strike me as being very immature. Your edits are something a child would do so you decided something like "I'm going to show him and edit the page anyway!" but you don't understand the stories, the linkings, why I put them in there, etc. You're pretty arrogant and shouldn't be on this page at all! You're NOT making a contribution. Now I have to investigate what other harm you've done.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ok, I hate to butt my head in here but I'm tired of seeing this back and forth reverting of edits. Wikipedia is run by consensus which your edits are going against, in fact your edits are violating the WP:OWN policy. You do not own this page and control everything that goes on it. It doesn't matter if he/she/them/they/everybody on earth was involved in this particular situation/murder or not, they can have a say on what is in this article and what is not. There is an active discussion on the Nightlife legislation about this issue and asking you exactly what your reasoning is for keeping this see also section and other edits in besides 'editors discretion'. There has even been a request to talk this to the talk page [1]. I highly suggest that you start acting civilly and start discussing your logic and reasoning behind these edits on the Nightlife legislation talk page rather than reverting on sight and making accusations against the IP and other editors. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This particular link, which User 70.109.223.188 took out, is one that I was especially responsible for.

[1]

It definitely refers to St. Guillen and 70.109.223.188 is just too lazy to scroll down on the page! As for what's on the Nightlife Discussion page, I don't see those arguments holding any water at all. Candice, you yourself put in the tag suggesting that the Nightlife section be split off from St. Guillen's page so I took your suggestion to heart and worked hard on that page; also taking Nightlife material from Jennifer Moore's page. Now you're simply reverting to type -- being viscious and "backstabbing" me as you had previously, or did you think I'd forget your harsh undeserved comments towards me in the past? I'm not forgetting that at all. You're siding with an unregistered user, and engaging in other unprofessional behavior. So to me this means that Wikipedia shows favoritism, especially towards unregistered users as I'm seeing here and you're siding with this user simply because you don't like me. No NPOV with you!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[2]

Looking at this situation from a non-biased viewpoint it pans out as thus: You are attempting to WP:OWN the page and are engaged in an edit war with an IP. A few users, other than the IP, have asked for why you keep reinstating this information and you cite nothing but 'editor discretion' when in fact wikipedia is based on community consensus. You alone are not community, people as a whole are. Editor discretion is a valid argument only when other agree with you, if other users say that 'x, y and z' do not belong then whatever consensus says should be followed. I am not siding with an IP however you do persist in calling the IP's edits vandalism and/or useless, you call him uninformed and you accuse him of stalking you. You revert established users edits and ignore many requests to discuss this. ([2], [3], [4], [5])
My placement of the tag is not relevant to this argument. I am not taking sides here and I've been a spectator in this as of so far, I am offering advice because of this ongoing edit war. My previous comments to you do not apply to this situation because this is not the same situation and quite frankly I'm not so absorbed with your edits that I remember every single one. People will not always agree with you on here, but that does not mean that there's any particular bias in the disagreements. To address the no NPOV accusation: If I had any particular point of view in these articles and against you I would be assisting in the removal of the See also sections. Interestingly enough the only edits I have in this situation is my advice to you above. This does not mean that I agree with your edits however it doesn't mean I disagree. So taking all that into account my suggestion to you is to stop taking things so personally on here. "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it," taken directly from WP:OWN. If you just cannot stand to have somebody else edit these articles then I will suggest, once again, for you to get your own personal wikia for these articles and your own personal editing. If either of you, you or the IP, edit these articles again to remove or add the see also section without trying to discuss it beforehand I will initiate an WP:RfC to gain further community consensus and more neutral points of view on this issue and to stop the constant edit warring. --ImmortalGoddezz 23:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Endtime Behavior". RaptureReady.com. April 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ "Endtime Behavior". RaptureReady.com. April 3, 2006. Retrieved 2007-11-09. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was pre-emptive move already performed, and there's no clear reason to reverse it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imette St. Guillen → Murder of Imette St. Guillen — Notability is the event —Artichoke2020 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:


See Talk:Chanel Petro-Nixon#Similar moves. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just a note to everyone: Notability (criminal acts) isn't any kind of guideline, let alone a policy — it's a unilateral proposal by Fritzpoll. As ImmortalGoddezz rightly says, this debate has been - er - heated in the past; see Articles for deletion/Ramona Moore and the almighty amount of sound-and-fury here (the entries on Ramona Moore, Chanel Petro-Nixon and Justine Ezarik) for more on the matter. — iridescent 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good contribution... I've copied it to Talk:Chanel Petro-Nixon#Similar moves, hope that's OK. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

THE IMPORTANCE AND RAMIFICATIONS OF THE ST. GUILLEN MURDER[edit]

I've not contributed for a while because of the arrogance and apparent "politcal correctness" that I see evidenced on this web encyclopedia. In disagreeing with another editor who acccused me of "WP:OWN" or whatever, my response is "It was a question of revisionism, never "WP:OWN" so this person simply can't reason or think outside of Wikipedia. Nevertheless, unlike some other people, I have paid great attention to this case. Some people reading this link I've put in below will say, stupidly, "this is a blog" but CHECK IT OUT FIRST BEFORE COMPLAINING WITH YOUR DAMN "WP"-THIS-AND-THAT RULES! When you read the letter from Joyce B. David to Judge Pfau (and I'm assuming that this isn't a phoney letter) then you'll see that, unfortunately, either way, there are strong forces involved in this murder.

http://www.crimesceneblog.com/docs/stguillen_imette/littlejohn%20letter%20to%20pfau.html

Now if this gets deleted, it will be deleted by a "politically correct" idiot, or worse, by the people mentioned in this letter. For those of you with discernment, you be the judge!--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can check this for the latest on Littlejohn:

Website: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09022008/news/regionalnews/imette_hulk_sulks_127108.htm

--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pioneer bar[edit]

This section shouldn't be here, full stop. Two reasons: 1) its irrelevant. 2) It sounds like an advert. (The bar has changed its name to the 'R' Bar and is still doing business)

Its a needless piece of information, correct me if I am wrong.--McNoddy (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another incident at a Dorrian-owned bar

I am definatly removing this piece of txt, irrelevant --McNoddy (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want it in here so that this bar isn't blamed in any way for what happened to St. Guillen. In the initial reports, this bar was wrongly associated with her death. It's The Falls that should be blamed for hiring two felon bouncers and the bartender lied to police for 5 days on St. Guillen's whereabouts, etc. Anything about The Falls bar should also stay in as, the manager of this bar now works at Dorrian's Red Hand and he should also be charged in St. Guillen's murder. Read Joyce B. David's letter which is linked on this page.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of St. Guillen's Murder is finally coming onto the Bartender[edit]

I'm pleased that the latest news reports are starting to mention the bartender's role in this tragic story and how he lied repeatedly to police. The so-called homeless people outside of The Falls cannot be trusted for any of their testimony because they may have been coached in their statements. As one who was in this bar 10 days after St. Guillen was murdered (and I debated the morality of that action with myself long and hard) I can inform everyone who takes this case seriously of one thing: that the bar was like a "spiritual black hole". It had a Miasma in it (look that word up). I've experienced these things before. This evil bar deserved to be closed, and I hope that his others establishments are closed as well.

As I predicted above, here is the focus on Dorrian and his family. The Bible speaks clearly about what happens to murderers after death so check out my page. Understand how Dorrian is probably thinkng right now. He's thinking that he can go to confession and that God will forgive him in there; but the confession booth is a catholic invention! It's NOT in the Bible and no one who goes in there is ever forgiven unless they come personally to Jesus Christ. There has been no change in human behavior since the beginning as recorded in the Bible. Cain lied to God about killing his brother, Abel -- this in the second generation of humankind alone! Pilate sought to have Jesus released -- but the people chose a murderer - Barabbas! Picking favorites and excusing murderers! This is what St. Guillen's case is unfortunately about. I'll always remember what this girl said to her ex-boyfriend, Ryan Kocher -- "I want to love." Only those who hate can abhor the poor girl who is now lost to all of us instead of this useless bartender and his family. Unless they repent, they will forever be cursed.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is far, far too long[edit]

The detail in this article is simply staggering, and although whoever put it all together is to be applauded, it's nowhere near the Summary style required by wikipedia. I think most of the length could be solved simply by merging a lot of the subtitled sections into condensed paragraphs. For example, instead of the 'Radio, fiction, song, television and media' section currently in the article, all the information could be condensed from single-sentence paragraphs into one or two large paragraphs entitled 'Meda' or somesuch, without subtitles, to make the article shorter and more readable. The same would apply to the entire article. Thoughts, anyone? Skinny87 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've gone ahead and condensed the above-mention section of the article into a section entitled 'Media appearances'. All information has been left alone, although a citationneeded tag was added, but it's already shortened the entire article somewhat. I'm confident that condensing the article like so, and also removing a number of the photos (we don't really need a panoramic photo of the crimescene, or a doorway of the bar really, for example) would shorten it and make it much more easy to read. Skinny87 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article is not well-organized and seems to unnecessarily ramble. A reorganization and copyedit would dramatically improve its presentation and usefulness to the reader. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done some more condensing of the article, but the entire article is riddled with some awful POV views and far, far too much detail as said above. It's also very dated in places. The main culprit is the Trial section, which needs to be massively cut down, and the Mothers comments in the section after could be trimmed to a sentence or two at most. However, I'm not sure how to go about this. Skinny87 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still debating whether or not to jump in and help with the article.. Anyway a few thoughts:
  1. Another incident at a Dorrian-owned bar, Another woman feared slain, and Key detective suspended and personal vehicle ticketed need to go - none of these sections have anything to do directly with the murder of St. Guillen besides a few token mentions in articles of related subjects.
  2. Pre-trial and trial in previous abduction - needs to go per above, maybe a mention is merited but no more than a sentence or two.
  3. Jury profile section - makes me worry about WP:BIO issues, also no need for the excessive amount of detail, a jury selection date in a trials section should be enough.
--ImGz (t/c) 20:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, my problem here is that I'm way over my head; I only write military history articles, and I've never written anything even vaguely like this. And there are so many sources I'm not even sure where to begin rewriting or cutting down. Skinny87 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so the Jurt selection is gone (no real relevance, huge amount of pointless detail), the incident at the Dorrian-owned bar and Detective being suspended are all gone. None were really relevant, and far, far too detailed. Unsure how far to go with trimming the previous trial - should the whole thing go? Skinny87 (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that I see being relevant in that section is perhaps the first four sentences of the section intro that deals with delaying the St. Guillen trial and the verdict since he received a life sentence. Though I add the verdict only because that might have some impact on the St. Guillen trial outcome? eg. I'm not sure if it would have any effect on his sentencing for the St. Guillen trial or the amount of time he ends of serving as a result of both trials which would be relevant to add. --ImGz (t/c) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer these criticisms:

1) The article is long because the murder case is a complex one. Perhaps you've never read legal documents; I have! You should see the legal pleadings for the Exxon/Valdez case which is now many years old and the class action suit still hasn't been satisfied. Wikipedia is contained as a website on a computer system and length should not be a problem. In today's world we're dealing with terabytes (and more) of information. Anyone involved in the legal field would certainly want the full story.

2) The details about the detective being ticketed: because of the political associations of the Dorrian and the other high office political people involved, possibly Rudy Giuliani, I put that in there and want it kept because of Giuliani's association with the NYPD. The detective may have been harassed because he had pertinent information. Perhaps Skinny87 doesn't have police corruption in Britain where he resides but I know New York rather well. Reread the article carefully and you'll begin to see New York politics and other chicannery involved in this case. Giuliani is married to a woman from the Dorrian clan, this family has ties to the I.R.A. -- on and on.

3) I became involved in this case as one of the people who protested The Falls bar. So I know the story better than all of you! No brag; just fact! I went into The Falls bar 10 days after St. Guillen was murdered. I wouldn't recommend that any decent person ever go into a bar such as this one. Indeed, the fact that it took so long for the bar to close shows a lack of morality on the State Liquor Authority's overseeing of the case. They should have closed the bar immediately! The fact that it wasn't is, again, a clue that political machinations were involved behind the public eye.

4) POV? Where? Be specific! FYI, I spoke to St. Guillen's mother the other day. She's doing all the right things as far as I'm concerned.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in terms of POV, your post above is rife with it, I'm afraid; you obviously have a WP:Conflict of Interest and are too close to the article, especially as a protestor at the bar and talking with the subject's mother. The article needs to be drastically shortened, which I will attempt to do in the next few weeks, cutting more bits out that aren't needed. Essentially, the entire thing is over-detailed to an almost obsessive degree; it needs to comply with WP:NPOV and especially WP:Summary style, which will mean a fundamental rewrite and restructuring. Skinny87 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and for specific violations of NPOV, look at my previous edits; taking out loaded terms took quite a while, mainly in the trial section - whoever wrote it was obviously siding with the prosecution, to the extent that WP:BLP was violated numerous times by slandering the defendant. Writing an article like this is difficult, but all editors need to remain dispassionate and neutral. Skinny87 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed you've reverted all of my edits. I refuse to edit-war over this article, but I will be looking to take this to mediation or perhaps even the Administrator Noticeboard if this behaviour should continue. You cannot simply undo such a mass of edits and hope to get away with it. Skinny87 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Ok so other things are longer, big deal. This is too long and not encyclopedic with it's length, it's clear cut case of POV and it's excessive detailing of information that is not relevant or borderline relevant.
  2. I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll say it again, be careful of WP:OR. Per your comments in #2 - unless an article makes a very specific connection between the two incidents then as I said before the content has nothing 'to do directly with the murder of St. Guillen besides a few token mentions in articles of related subjects.' Token mentions don't merit mention here.
  3. Who cares, sorry it's blunt but I don't care that you have an interest in the subject. Frankly very few others will outside the fact that you present a WP:COI on the subject due to your heightened interest in the case. Also it's not relevant to the article at all.
  4. See above. Your heightened interest in the case makes you a conflict of interest. I'm not sure you should be editing these articles at all with such a clear case of POV. POV - you have a connection to the family through the case and an interest in seeing justice and an article that has a positive slant towards St. Guillen and her family and a negative one towards Littlejohn. BTW read WP:POV to familiarize yourself with POV and look at skinny's example/s.
Agree with skinny that if you continue to revert edits that mediation is the way to go.
--ImGz (t/c) 20:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe good progress was being made until the article was reverted, so I've left MurderWatcher1 a note about the perils of ownership, COI and blind reverting. They clearly have valuable contributions to make, so I hope that they'll engage in constructive discussion here and you can get things back on track. I'll keep the article on my watchlist ;) Thank you all for the work you're putting in here. EyeSerenetalk 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reverted the reversion and encouraged MurderWatcher to engage in a discussion in relation to WP policies and not his own personal COI. Karanacs (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in creating a new Wikipedia page entry?[edit]

If you're reading this article, then you will notice a new term being used, "nerd defense". I've done searches on Wikipedia using the following terms: Nerd Defense, Attorney Tactics, legal tactics, Lawyer Tactics, Defense Tactics; and also searched Wikipedia pages for possible mentions going on to the following pages: "Lawyer", "Criminal defense lawyer", "Public defender", but nothing has come up except an automated prompt saying that I can create the page reference. Rather than go through the trouble of creating something that will simply be deleted, I'll simply provide these websites in my online searches using Google, where I've seen the term come up. The first weblink is already used in this article on St. Guillen:

(The above is already in this article on St. Guillen)

If no one takes the bait, then I'll consider creating the page myself.MurderWatcher1 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the NY Daily News article, not a single one of the sites you've listed is usable as a Wikipedia source. Wikipedia is an aggregator of encyclopedic information, not a blog; unless you can find evidence that a topic meets Wikipedia's very specific criteria of independent, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources—that generally (but not exclusively) means textbooks, peer-reviewed journals and non-fiction books by acknowledged experts—then the topic is inappropriate for coverage in Wikipedia; if the article (or any other article) is written, every statement made in the article needs to be cited to a reliable source (as defined by Wikipedia). If the article mentions or alludes to any living people, then it also must comply with all aspects of our policy on Biographies of living persons, including (among other things) the provisions that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source, and that court transcripts are explicitly not permitted as sources on Wikipedia. – iridescent 01:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Death Assessment Commentary[edit]

The article was assessed C-class, for lack of clarity on several points. First, the circumstances of the murder itself are unclear. Certainly, the details of the crime came out during the trial. Second, the wording in the trial section is often confusing. Names are brought up without introduction. Who is "the Japanese woman"? The article goes in-depth about the ramifications of the case, but it needs some work.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Imette St. Guillen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Imette St. Guillen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Murder of Imette St. Guillen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Murder of Imette St. Guillen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Imette_St._Guillen&oldid=1205864682"