Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Kitty Genovese/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

How is her name pronounced?

I just heard a radio show in which it was pronounced jenn-oh-VEEZ. I was expecting jenn-oh-VAY-zay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostile17 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Self defense

Rdikeman, I disgree with the revert. The only two contexts in which I've ever heard Kitty Genovese mentioned were:

  1. People talking about how much they hate New York
  2. People talking about self defense

Your stated objection was to the link "about guns" anyway, not to the sentence itself. Why not just remove the link? The fact I stated remains relevant.--EllisWyatt 23:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I restored the statement without the link. Thanks! Rdikeman 03:07, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

I added that the killer was an of african-american decent and local. Why was that removed without comment, and at the same time you let the victim's family background stand??

Born in New York City; the daughter of Rachel (née Petrolli), and Vincent Andronelle Genovese, she was the oldest of five children in a middle-class Italian American family and was raised in Brooklyn.

Staalorm 15.08.2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.99.0 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, why'd you move it from Catherine? Point me at a policy page :)
~ender 2003-09-09 22:59:MST

You talkin' to me?<G> [1] You indicated you wanted it moved, and [2] I assumed you wanted it moved to the correct location which is: the name she is most commonly known by. I'm sure that last bit is on lots of policy pages: one would be Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

Use common names of persons and things
Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

-- Someone else 06:03, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I wanted the *typo* moved/deleted. I was assuming that redirect would work for unofficial name, and that we'd put her under her official name.
~ender 2003-09-09 23:08:MST
generally typos are just redirected (I think that's fairly stupid, unless it's a common misspelling, but that's the policy). And people are generally meant to be under the name they are most commonly known by, not their "Official" name, a rule with fairly capricious exceptions made for those holding various titles, positions, styles, etc. In this case, she's known almost exclusively as Kitty, so that's where the article should be. -- Someone else 06:12, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, well in this case I think it's dumb. Nothing else is linking cahterine_genovese. I just made the article, therfor it's not in any search engines that way, either. Is there any reason why cahterine_genovese shouldn't be deleted?
~ender 2003-09-09 23:20:MST
I'll put it on VfD. I think it's stupid not to delete it, but we must bow to the concensus. -- Someone else 06:37, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Another view?

I recently stumbled across a history of Kew Gardens, Genovese's Queens community, that has quite a thorough treatment of the crime. The author concludes pretty much that the forty years worth of moral outrage that has been directed towards the neighborhood and the "38 witnesses" is based on a mostly fabricated description of the actual events that appeared in the New York Times two weeks later.

I have added an external link to the Kew Gardens site, but otherwise not changed anything here. I would be interested in your opinion of this viewpoint.

Thanks, Rdikeman 15:59, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting analysis; granted it's a single person's work, but it seems pretty solid... based on that article, I added some more qualifications to statements in the article (most notably, removing any reference to the "second" attack). Perhaps something else should be said about how the events are often mis-interpreted. (that it wasn't 38 eyewitnesses with cameras the whole time a la Rodney King, which is basically how *I* first heard the case presented - from a psychology prof, no less...) . - Seth Ilys 16:57, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The article seems very POV in excusing the Kew Gardens people for not wanting to get involved and not calling police to save the woman's life. The main exculpatory info comes from sources not up to the standards for Wikipedia as "reputable" or "verifiable." There are websites created by individuals, Kew Gardens residents, who obviously want there to not be contempt for their neighborhood. One is http://www.oldkewgardens.com/ss-nytimes-3.html a private website by Mr. DeMay, a 32 year resident of Kew Gardens and member of a historical society. It reads like a defense attorney's court pleading, and is very POV. It is not a good reference to use in an article. Per the CourtTV cite, many people heard her screaming that she was being stabbed. "“Oh my God! He stabbed me!” she screamed. “Please help me! Please help me!” Some apartment lights went on in nearby buildings. Irene Frost at 82-68 Austin Street heard Catherine’s screams plainly. “There was another shriek,” she later testified in court, “and she was lying down crying out.” Hardly a "lovers quarrel." The Rosenthal book says "The police said most persons had told them they had been afraid to call, but had given meaningless answers when asked what they had feared. " It also says that from the first Kew Gardens residents have been saying "Let's just forget that it happened here."
Then many people heard her screaming in the second attack, and turned on their lights again. This knocks down much of the excuse. Saying that it is not true that 38 people watched and listened to the entire attack for 30 minutes does not expain away that many of them or even more per some sources, should have heard her screams as the murderer was stabbing her in the back at the beginning of the incident. The CourtTV site says "When cops finished polling the immediate neighborhood, they discovered at least 38 people who had heard or observed some part of the fatal assault on Kitty Genovese." The Rosenthal book agrees with this. These not-so good Samaritans gave police excuses like they thought it was a lovers quarrel or they were just afraid. If they had called police around the time of the attack, her life might have been saved, since the first screaming was at 3:15, the police were not called until after 3:50, and she was still alive when they arrived 2 minutes later. Then the article says that she was a lesbian, as if that had any conceivable relation to a stranger murdering her. Thre is not a hint in the evidence that her sexual preference caused her murder. This very POV story needs the nonverifiable material pruned back a bit. Stick with reputable published sources, not the personal websites of people wanting to explain away the apathy of people who were afraid to get involved. Edison 16:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
There is also a piece from NPR's On the Media about the event challenging the "textbook" take on what happened:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/07/03/04 I just realized this interview has already been cited at the end of the Public Reaction section.Pklala (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Further checking shows that Joseph De May, who is the person interviewed by NPR, is also the person who used to maintain the (now defunct) Kew Gardens site mentioned above. My source: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/a-fascinating-intersection-of-true-crime-psychology-and-media-misinformation/ Pklala (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why I reverted image change

I reverted to the darker image, because the details of the face are lost in the washed-out version--Pharos 16:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV check

I'm not sure this article is as NPOV as it could be, especially the attack section. Would anyone mind confirming that for me? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I AGREE COMPLETELY. The attack section seems to be the most defensive article I've read yet about this case - full of excuses for why people didn't act. Does not link/document where they get this view point. VERY unsubstantiated. BAD BAD BAD!!!
I DISAGREE. The details of the attack are taken from the transcript of the trial of Kitty's killer and from other sources. These sources are discussed in one of the External Links at the bottom of the article. A somewhat condensed version of that analysis can be found here:
    http://www.oldkewgardens.com/kitty_genovese-001.html

A February 8, 2004 New York Times article seems sympathetic to the web site's point of view. That article can be read here: 

    http://www.middlesexcc.edu/library/images/kitty.pdf

What happened to the perp? Bastie 23:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

-Even if the POV is scewered in either direction, the anger that followed the article served (and continues to serve) the ideal that people should help other people, especially when it appears they are in danger, and when their inaction results in the harm of another- they share the same blame as the attacker. If the onlookers knew they had no way of knowing what was happening, then they would not be offended when asked about it. Who cares what other people think if you know in your heart it isn't true?

The media often botches stories like these. I was involved in a similar incident in years past. One guy was running after another through neighborhood back yards. The second yelling "Stop him" as he ran through my brother's back yard. By the time we were able to get a grasp of things, they were gone. Nobody had "good guy" or "bad guy" stamped on their foreheads, so we had no way of knowing whether we would be stopping a thief (which turned out to be the case) or a victim. We only saw a little chunk of the whole incident, so we didn't know what to do. The media the next day made it sound like "civic cowardice" on our parts, which was doubly wrong, since my brother did go to the front of the house and assist when guy #2 caught guy #1.

Moral clarity in hindsight, especially by a media type wanting a juicy headline, seems to be the driver for many of these stories. That they blast civic self-esteem is unimportant, it seems. Those 38 people in this sad story were not all comfortable about such accusations, I expect. Catbar (Brian Rock) 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I AGREE with the POV dispute. Implications from the media may not have been entirely on the mark, but this current article goes in the exact opposite directions. It's so grotesquely biased that it defends even those who admitted to witnessing the attack, makes presumed excuses for those suspected to have known, and implies that the NY Times article simply fabricated information. Very unprofessional. --AWF
The infamous Times article did fabricate information -- the "second attack" between the observed stabbing (which appeared to its one known witness a beating) and the final attack in the hallway never happened, as Moseley's allocution makes clear; and investigators on the case stated that there was no evidence to support the assertion that there were 38 witnesses to the murder. My personal theory is that the writer based his figure on the number of apartments overlooking the scene of the attack(s) and thus the number of potential witnesses, if he based it on anything at all... but as that's just supposition on my part, I left it out of the article. As, after reviewing the sources cited and other links provided in the article by other editors, and making a few edits to bring the article's previous bias in line with what I found, I now feel the article meats the NPOV standard, I have removed the POV tags. —The Jack 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The story is very POV. People in Kew Gardens have wanted the world to forget about it from the very first. It is presently skewed, or maybe "Kewed."Edison 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Parole status of perpertrator

On 10/22/05 above, Bastie asked whatever happened to the killer. He is in prison and is up for parole again in Jan. of 2006. You can keep track of him by going to the following URL on the New York Parole Board web site and entering "Winston" and "Moseley" (w/o the quotation marks) in the appropriate text search boxes.

http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/kinqw00

—preceding unsigned comment by 68.161.218.234 (talk • contribs) 11:38, December 3, 2005

Parole denied. [1] patsw 02:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be two dates for Moseley's "next" parole hearing in the article, they cannot both be correct.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Corrected. Placed link in reference for ease of updating. --Michael C. Price talk 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer is shrill

The following comment by C-U RPCV refers to the use of the NPOV-disputed tag in Wikipedia articles. 70.74.1.201 09:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with raising the issue of ambiguity, or for that matter, the sheer unwieldiness of various situations that many times gets glossed over through the various media accounts that weigh in on a subject. In fact, so far as I am concerned, any degree of controversy about any given Wikipedia topic can be explored, while streamlined, through judicious use of links. But the disclaimer that appears at the very top of this article is just plain shrill. It does serious disservice to the article as a whole.

Personally, this story would be useful to me to back up a recent decision I made to bring a delicate matter to the attention of someone about whom serious rumors have been flying behind his back. Some people think I should have just kept quiet about it; and they have told me so. This story would be useful to me but for the fact that the disclaimer makes it appear altogether untrustworthy.

Realistically that disclaimer has to be a serious liability for any use of that article for any matter of any substance.

And perhaps there are few rights of authorship in this arena. But still, if I had been the one to go to all the work of compiling and then presenting all this information, I would be seriously torqued to then find it treated in such a shabby fashion.

If I were managing this encyclopedia, I would tag articles such as this with a yellow warning sign with the words "Warning: Disputed Elements In Article" in bold text, and everything else in regular text. I would not use a red, stop sign with the palm of a hand. And ironically, there is no neutrality of point of view to cast doubt on the neutrality of point of view in bold text. I would save that kind of verbiage for the actual explanation. "Disputed Elements" is somewhat less tendentious; it is more concise; and that is what I would favor.

Furthermore, it would be helpful and reassuring to provide a link in that warning sign that would effectively highlight the disputed text, such that anyone would be able to tell at a glance what is disputed, without wondering as they read through about each statement in the article as a whole.

C-U RPCV 05:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open-content. You are managing this encyclopedia. There are guidelines that the community has constructed, but they're not set in stone, and if the community of users/editors wants to see something changed, then it can be done. Someone more knowledgeable can probably direct you to the right places to discuss the kinds of changes you mentioned. As to what content disputed tags refer to, the current convention is usually to refer you to this talk page (where you may have to dig around). That could change. As an open-content encyclopedia, you probably shouldn't be relying on this article as your only research source if you wish to use the information in a formal setting. Wikipedia editors are supposed to cite their sources, however, and this article has relatively good citations, so you can always go to the sources and make up your own opinion. The tag gets removed when more of a concensus is achieved. (And I feel that if an article has a significantly disputed POV, then that should be made as apparent as possible, because it may be too subtle for people who are unfamiliar with the topic to otherwise pick up on.) 70.74.1.201 09:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me

I have learned about this case numerous times in my psychology courses (and from books); the account here is perfectly consistent with everything i've learned. --Katwmn6 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Life sentence

His sentence was reduced to life (not "20 to life") according to the New York Times of June 2, 1967. If you have access to the full New York Times text, it reads like a case study of how people came to regard the legal process with cynicism. Each subsequent story that's appeared in the Times repeats the sentence as "life". patsw 05:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

In the '60s, as in many states at that time, New York had indeterminate sentencing, which, as in most states, has since been abolished (for violent felony offenses)—although of course not retroactively, so there are still plenty of New York prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for these crimes. (There really needs to be an article on determinate vs. indeterminate sentencing). Moseley's sentence was in fact prison for a term of "20 years to life." Such sentences were commonly referred to as "life sentences," and generally a sentence of "X to Y years" would be referred to as a sentence of Y years, or perhaps as "Y years, eligible for parole after serving X." If Moseley had been sentenced to life in prison today, he would not even have the option of being reviewed by a parole board. It's lock 'em up and throw away the key. The only ways to get out early from a final, determinate sentence is escape, pardon, or collateral attack. So while it's not incorrect say he was sentenced to "life," it is more correct to say he was sentenced to "20 to life." NTK 03:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW, no need to take my word for it. Click [:http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/], put in Moseley's name and you can see his sentence direct from the Corrections database. Minimum 20 years, maximum life. NTK 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't follow your link. It got a "proxy error". But for the benefit of others reading this with access to the New York Times historical database, the most recent article to mention Winston Moseley does describe his sentence as "20 to life". (No Sympathy for Killer of Kitty Genovese November 11, 2001, A39) patsw 06:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Kitty's sexual orientation

I just noticed the tag at the bottom that this article is part of one on famous GLBT people. I see the small reference to her girlfriend's name. In all I have ever read about this case (and I've read plenty since I was born in New York the same hour that she died - her case following me around through life) I have never seen any mention of this fact. I have to say, if it was a generally known fact at the time of her death, it may very likely have played some role in the inaction of her neighbors. There's been a tendency in the past 20 years for people to excuse the inaction of her neighbors, citing the exaggeration of the media. Some of that is warranted, I agree. I'd look and see if I can find any articles that discuss the facts of this case as they may relate to her orientation. Lisapollison 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done my best to include some detail on Kitty's life as a lesbian, why that was never mentioned, and about how the 40th anniversary coverage prompted disclosure by her lover. I've tried to be respectful. I feel these details are important and deserve inclusion. Kitty has been embraced as part of Lesbian herstory and so mention of it should be made. I do wish someone would find a better photo though - the one included is cropped from a mugshot from when Kitty was arrested on a minor gambling charge in connection with her work at a Sports-bar where book was commonly made.Lisapollison 08:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Great addition, Lisapollison! The only part I object to is your straight-faced use of "herstory" in the article as though it were a simple academic term, rather than a satirical pun that's rarely used in any serious context. And this article is surely as serious a context as any.
I also agree that if anyone can find any more photographs at all of her, they should be added, though certainly we shouldn't remove the one we already have, as it's by far the most famous photograph of her and is highly relevant (it was the photo used in the original newspaper article). -Silence 08:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I've read just about everything on this murder there is to read, including the Rosenthal book, the Seedman book, and relevant excerpts from the trial transcript and District Attorney's brief. Save for one witness who may himself have been gay, I have not yet seen anything to suggest that any of the witnesses recognized Kitty or knew of her sexual orientation.
The anonymous user is correct - I've re-read everything I have on the case and there is nothing to suggest they did. In fact, a number of witnesses seemed to presume she was heterosexual as evidenced by their comments that they felt the stabbing was just a case of a 'lover's quarrel." I do still feel that serious historians should consider this more thorougly. Genovese and her lover lived in a one-bedroom apartment and were frequent patrons of a couple of well-known Lesbian bar/nightclubs. The community they lived in at the time was more of a village than a city. The subsequent portayals of the neighborhood as a part of the "big bad city" give a flase impression of indifference. Certainly the Police and prosecution knew the nature of the relationship. More comment from her lover would help settle this. As for "herstory". lesbian authors and "herstorians" do NOT use the term with tongue in cheek attitude. The wikipedia article on herstory is incomplete and not NPOV. The term Herstory has come into common usage to describe lebsian history. It is has not accepted to describe women's history, however. I'll try and help complete the herstory article to bring it into line with common usage, detailing where it is used without facetitious. The term is usually specific to articles or publications intended for lesbian readership. it used to be limited to academia but you'll see it used in a variety of sources now. I really didn't want to make the case for the term but since it's been brought up, I'll look for some good citations. Thanks for the inspriration. Incidentally, I'm not a lesbian nor a herstorian, my degrees are in Linguistics and Folklore.Lisapollison 04:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
There sems to be a desire to establish a motif of "She brought it on herself and we are absolved of responsibility for apathy." It does not work very well. The neighbors would have been as apathetic whomever she was. This is as silly as the claim "They didn't want to get involved because they thought she was from the Genovese Crime Family." At the same time, the revisionist historians want us to believe that no one could hear or see very much, in which case they wouldn't know who it was.Edison 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to ask that some mention of her being a lesbian be included in the article (such as in the "Life" section). I was completely thrown for a loop when I saw the LGBT tag after having read the article with no mention of it.--SeizureDog 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added back in a reference in her "Life" section to her sexual orientation. In the interest of history, please do not remove this reference again. That Genovese was a lesbian is no longer a matter of dispute. Her lesbian lover "came out" in 2004 about their relationship in the "Sound Portraits" interview that's very clearly linked. (It's a pretty heartbreaking story, so be warned before you click on it.) However, I also added a disclaimer that there is no evidence that her sexual orientation had anything to do with her attack and murder, which is also important. Her murder, from what the rest of the article implies, was rather random. Her homosexuality adds a new dimension to her life as a person and is of interest to students of the case. (GT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.206.219 (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

While her sexual orientation was not widely known until 2004, clearly some people knew about it. DEATH SCREAM, the 1975 TV-movie based (loosely) on the case, did portray her as having a girlfriend, at a time when lesbian roles were rare on TV. -- Steven Capsuto

The bulk of these comments seem to agree that her sexual orientation had no bearing on the murder, and as stated below (see section on name of article) the reason she is notable is that she was murdered. If it was an article on someone who was famous for some other reason, then her sexuality should of course be included, but if you look at this as an article on 'The murder of Kitty Genovese' then unless (as seems unlikely) it did have a bearing on the crime, then it should be excluded. I don't know much about Wikiproject LGBT studies but I can't really see a relevance.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Today I added an entry and description of the 1996 Law & Order episode based on the Genovese case. There are many more pop culture and media references that can be added but I felt this one needed to be there since it dealt with some of the stranger aspects of Moseley's appeal. Lisapollison 04:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of this article

please be aware that someone keeps vandalising this article by inserting inappropriate things and changing the place of her birth from new York City to Equador. Thanks to those editors who've caught such vandalism in the past. I'll try and stay on top of this as well.````

Vandalism by User:168.229.236.100

On 07:32, 17 May 2006, User talk:168.229.236.100 inserted the following vandalism: "Moseley was a child raper that bicth gave a confession to the police where he detailed the attack…" Diff

Three hours later, User talk:68.106.123.144 deleted the word "bicth" but left the rest of the vandalism intact. Diff

168.229.236.100 has a history of vandalism. See: User talk:168.229.236.100, block log, and History:Kitty Genovese.

In light of this past misbehavior, the remainder of his "child raper" comment is most likely untrue. I have deleted it. —Ryan 19:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The Genovese crime family; homophobia; was Kitty recognized?

There are any number of reasonable inferences that you can draw from the facts surrounding the Kitty Genovese murder. The notion that witnesses did not help Kitty because her last name suggested a mob connection is not one of them. No such thing is even hinted at in the trial record or contemporaneous accounts of the killing. Al Seedman's chapter on the case is silent on this point. Especially given what the March 27, 1964 New York Times described as the "darkness" which "shrouded" the neighborhood, there is no reason to believe anyone would have recognized Kitty or would have known what her last name was if they had. Another piece of misinformation you will find on the web is that Kitty's body was identified by mobster, Vito Genovese - an impossibility since Genovese was in federal prison at the time.

I have edited the section referencing the mob-name-similarity theory to reflect the low likelihood of any witness having recognized Kitty, and giving the theory no more credence than it deserves. I did not remove all reference to the theory, since it is an existing, if highly implausible, alternate explanation of the event. I also added reference to the theory that neighbors may not have called police or helped in another way because Kitty was a lesbian, since the difficulty for most potential witnesses in witnessing any of the attack tends to undercut that theory as well. —The Jack 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
A function of good editing is to delete "existing, if highly implausible, alternative explanations" which lack reputable and verifiable sources. Did a witness tell the police he thought she was a Crime Family Genovese? Where is that published? Can't find such a source? Then feel free to delete it.I did.Edison 16:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Can I point you to a June 17, 1995 New York Times article [2] which states the following: "Barry Jean Rhodes, Mr. Moseley's current lawyer, argued that Mr. Sparrow's statement clearly indicated a conflict of interest, and he asked the judge to throw out the conviction. He said that Mr. Sparrow had not only represented Miss Genovese in an appeal on a gambling charge but had also represented members of the Genovese crime family who were related to the murder victim. Mr. Sparrow, who is 82, was in the courtroom as a spectator."
I think that that may constitute some evidence of her relationship to the crime family, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.86.175 (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article is slanted in such a way as to give the reader no objective way of making up their own mind oin the article. It is written in such away that it is loaded against the perpetrator and towards feeling empathy for the victim. Where as a human natural feelings are unavoidable but for the purposes of journalistic and article standards on wikipeida this should be avoided as far as possible. The only way this cannot be avoided is if direct facts are being stated eg A was attacked by B from behind and stabbed x number of times. This article uses emotive language to try and guve a slant to the article. Aclean up of the way the article is written should eliminate any recurring problems with neutrality.--Lucy-marie 18:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous assertion. The description of the murder doesn't contain any "emotive language" that I can see, and seems to conform just fine to the your "A stabbed B so many times" standards. The guy was obviously a crazy maniac and commited horrible crimes on numerous occasions. Its kind of hard to "let people make up their minds" with such overwhelming evidence of that. The only aspect of the article that I can see that might be a bit biased is its take on the neighbor's reaction to the crime, but that's rather debateable. -- Grandpafootsoldier 22:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
A reader having sympathy with the random victim of a vicious murder, rather than with the attacker, is not indicative of bias in the presentation of the facts of the murder. Any bias currently or formerly present in this article had nothing to do with the details of his crimes being unflattering to Winston Moseley. —The Jack 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel so sorry for the poor serial killer. It probably hurt his wrist when she kept hitting his knife with her back. Get a grip. Edison 16:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that was completely inappropriate, and I don't think that was the context of her comment. You don't have to be so obnoxious.74.227.63.107 (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I still see a lot of problems throughout this article. Here are some dubious, inaccurate, poorly-worded, or subtly-POVed phrases in the text:
  • "The two lived a quiet life together." - Compared to what? According to who? This needs a citation, or better yet an attestation. It also needs clarification; what about their life was unusually "quiet"? If this is merely meant to indicate that they lived a relatively normal, uneventful life together, then the sentence isn't necessary at all and should be removed, as it is assumed in a biographical work that any random person's life is relatively normal and uneventful when no special information is given on it. It is as superfluous as saying "Important thing X happened in 1918. Important thing Y happened in 1920. Nothing of much interest happened in 1919."
  • "Genovese had driven home" - There is no reason to use the past perfect tense ("had driven") rather than the simple past tense ("drove") here. The "had driven home", in this context, adds a tone of unacademic melodrama and lack of detachment to this section.
  • "When Genovese screamed out, her cries were heard by several neighbors; but on a cold night with the windows closed only a few of them recognized the sound as a cry for help." - According to the rest of the article, there are a large number of reasons (some of them disputed or subject to debate) for why the neighbors did not respond. It is both POVed and misleading to state a single one of those explanations as the sole reason for the neighbors' inaction as though it were settled fact. Moreover, this sentence directly contradicts much of the rest of the article, and itself: if the windows of the apartments were closed, then how do we know that they heard the cries for help at all? And how do we know that all the windows were closed (source, please?)? And if they were closed, or if everyone didn't realize that the cries were cries for help, then how did a woman shout "Let that girl alone!", as the very next sentence attests? It would be best to just state the simple, uncontroversial facts of the matter here, and leave the speculation as to why people didn't respond for a later paragraph, rather than hopefully mixing up the two.
  • "but now out of view of those few who may have had reason to believe she was in need of help", "Out of view of the street and of those who may have heard or seen any sign of the original attack," - The repetition and redundancy here reflects very poor organization, and also a hidden bias towards wanting to make it excruciatingly clear that the original observers could not. While stating that fact is fine, stating it over and over and over again reflects, whether actual or imagined, a specific agenda on the part of the writers (to dispel a certain common misconception, which is fine to some extent as long as that isn't given precedence over a straightforward, factual presentation of the events in question).
  • "While she lay dying", "and left her dying in the hallway" - Again, poorly-written repetitions like this unintentionally reflect a specific (however admirable) agenda on the part of the writers to emphasize a certain point. Stuff like this is probably what gave Lucy-marie the impression that the account was "slanted": not because she thinks that we should try to present a murderer in a sympathetic light, but because she noticed (even if only on an unconscious level) how subtly emotive language was being used to try to invoke sympathy for Genovese in the readers. While emotive language like this might be appropriate for a newspaper editorial or a biography, it's certainly out-of-place in a neutral academic resource like an encyclopedia. Genovese was arguably "dying" for the entire portion of the attack leading up to her death en route to the hospital, depending on what sense of "dying" we mean to use; to repeatedly point out that she "she lay dying" or "he left her dying" in quick succession at this specific part of the narrative overstates the point and doesn't add much valuable information, while simultaneously diluting this article's neutral, encyclopedic tone, albeit very subtly.
  • "(but almost certainly not the 38 cited in the Times article)" - The Times article has not yet been mentioned by this point in the article. Alluding to it before it's been introduced is inconsiderate to our readers. Also, the use of parentheses gives the slight impression that this article's writers were hastily rushing to correct any possible misconceptions we might have about the Times article being accurate, which again demonstrates an encyclopedically improper (albeit perfectly understandable, on a human level) agenda to correct certain errors, rather than to straightforwardly and neutrally present a series of sourced facts. The information shouldn't be removed, but it should be reorganized so as to avoid both the inconvenience to our readers (who shouldn't be assumed to already know what the Times article is) and the hint of an editorial agenda in our haste to correct errors overcoming our encyclopedic responsibility to simply explain what happened first.
  • The last paragraph of "Attack" should clearly be moved to "Public reaction", as such speculation is irrelevant to the actual sequence of events involved in the attack on Genovese. It is much better placed among the other wild theories and interpretations of what happened, mentioned later in the article.
  • "Moseley overpowered a guard and beat him up to the point that his eyes were bloody." - The second half of this sentence is needlessly ambiguous and poorly-worded.
  • In addition to the above, he did not "grab a bat", but stole the guard's gun according to: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/kitty_genovese/10.html . This section is horribly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.81.13.146 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "in truth "38 onlookers who did nothing" is a misleading conception." - According to who? Cite a source, or better yet provide a quotation rather than having Wikipedia itself make such an assertion. Wikipedia is in the business of reporting on what reputable secondary sources have stated, not in the business of investigating or judging events all on its own. Although it is indeed important to make it clear that the newspaper misrepresented a number of facts, "misleading conception" is both a POVed and poorly-worded way to describe this misrepresentation.
  • "However, Rorschach is later revealed to be lying about the significance of this event in his life." - This is actually a complete falsehood. Who made this nonsense up? The character Rorschach never lied about the event's significance; according to Watchmen, it was indeed one of the formative events leading up to his becoming Rorschach, though it wasn't the specific event that resulted (in the character's own view) in his transforming fully into Rorschach. Rather, it was the event that first set him on that path. -Silence 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: The statment:
The two lived a quiet life together.
I wrote that and I sourced it (along with other descriptions of her life before the crime which were deleted), linking to a transcript of a radio interview with her lover who had been speaking about it for the first time. The link became broken, no longer linking to the full text of her interview which described their quite and careful life as lesbians living together in a time when that lifestyle was not particularly accepted. Other details of their life together were snipped that would have clarified that original statment. They were careful not to frequent gay clubs in Queens but did go to spots in Manhattan. They didn't go out as a couple in their neighborhood, preferring to stay in, etc. etc. It's too bad the transcript is gone. I'll try and find another online source for it. I lived not too far away from that neighborhood for a while. At the time, it was a pretty sleepy area with a nice bedroom community feel to it. Oh well, if you don't feel the statment can stand without a restored source, delete it. it only served to counter some of the allegations in other online sources that Kitty was a wild boozing woman with a gambling problem and open ties to organized crime. The Law & Order Episode actually gave weight to that approach. These characterizations proliferate on sites which seek to exonerate her neighbors for "failing" to act. As I'm sure [User:Silence|Silence]] is aware, the entire episode is far more complicated than that. It's the cultural myth of total innaction and callous disregard that folks are trying to fight now. Lisapollison 23:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see a clear relevance for some info on Kitty's lifestyle, as this may have affected the second key event: the neighbours' reaction (not helping). Maybe the phrasing was at fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Spring Onion (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? Do any of our sources say that? - Schrandit (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Physically impossible?

Because of the layout of the complex and the fact that each attack took place in a different location as Genovese attempted to flee her attacker, it would have been physically impossible for a witness to have seen the entire attack.

I don't see how it could be "physically impossible", given that both Kitty Genovese and Winston Moseley were witness to the entire attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.101.59.18 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 February 2007

Add something like "from one location" to the end of the sentence, since the point of that line is to deny that someone could see the whole attack without moving around (e.g., following the attacks around the complex isn't being dismissed). -Silence 06:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note the words "for a witness". 98.246.183.207 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The original research syndrome

I removed the following two neologisms from the intro:

  • the "Bad Samaritan Complex"
  • "Genovese syndrome".

I was not able to find any reference to them which exists prior to their appearance in this article. Even though this article never obtained featured status, it does appear at the top of the Google search for Kitty Genovese so information and misinformation from this article is entering the information food chain. I also did Pro-Quest periodicals search including the New York Times and there were zero results as well, which is usually pretty good at finding anything obscure. patsw 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Correcting myself: I found a good cite for "Genovese syndrome" and added it back. patsw 03:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is a good reason why Wikipedia is not trustworthy

I'm writing this while watching a History Channel program about the case. It pretty much completely contradicts the line of whoever wrote this wikipedia article (that the episode was unfairly cast against the people living in the area). Moreover, it does so authoritatively showing excerpts of police reports and interviews with the author of "38 Witnesses."

I love Wikipedia, but after reading this, I begin to understand why some teachers and professors will not allow students to use it as a source for a paper. My feeling is that Wikipedia is great for things that a regular encyclopedia wouldn't touch (like the ins and outs of a TV show) and for covering breaking stories. But as for the rest, it's only a good pointer to the actual sources used.

I think the article needs to be completely rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.103.119 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2007.

There's plenty of verifiable and cited information debunking the claims that there were thirty-eight witnesses to her murder and that none of them called the police. The History Channel accepted for its program -- A.M. Rosenthal's version of the rape and murder which contradicts undisputed facts which became known later. The Wikipedia presents different accounts backed by references to them. patsw 00:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go back and review the History Channel documentary again, you'll find it supports the article more than contradicts it. Although the History Channel narrator repeatedly mentions 38 people who supposedly watched the murder play out for half an hour, the documentary also features former Queens County Assistant District Attorney Charles Skoller's account of the case which shows they could not have. In 2004, Skoller told the N.Y. Times that he did not know where the number 38 came from as the D.A.'s office only found about 6 people who saw anything that could be used in the case. Skoller's account also contradicts the popular belief that there were three separate attacks rather than two. This Wikipedia article seems consistent with Skoller's account. I do not remember the History Channel special providing quotes from any police reports. If I missed that, can you say what those quotes were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.72.179 (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the notion of this as a bad article. Like many other contributors I have read many accounts of this in Psychology books, and also read claims disputing the events. It stands as a historical event which is not clearly understood, and not all of the facts can be proven. The article is no less accurate than the Psych textbooks, probably more so than most due to the depth of the sources cited.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor appearance?

This might be coincidental, intentional, or just coincidence (since I have no way to get a reliable answer on this..) but..

In the game Fallout Tactics there is a character portrait that looks strikingly similar to Kitty's little mugshot photograph.

If anyone could find out, that'd be neat, but I honestly don't expect any verification. Just a little side note. NemFX 22:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly similar story

This news article has been making the rounds; it's about a woman in Kansas who was stabbed during a convenience store robbery, then lay dying on the floor as several shoppers stepped over her body and one took a cell phone picture. It may warrant some kind of mention in this article, depending on future coverage. Propaniac 00:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This substantial section was removed without discussion here. Could the editors who did so explain what motivated them to delete it? patsw 14:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't, but I can speculate as it fell under the MoS section on trivia. The removal accompanied the edit summary of: "removed trivia too trivial to be worked into the body of the article". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 14:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
What Thor said. I took out the item in the section that could be worked into the article, and deleted all the other instances that really were so trivial as to be beneath mention. It's a fairly common and unexceptional bit of copy-editing; I didn't think it was talkpage worthy. Ford MF 15:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, FMF. There was very little there that added to our knowledge of the subject of the article, Kitty Genovese. --CliffC 15:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Many biographical articles contain references to the subject in popular culture. Their deletion from this article does not constitute removed "trivia" and have validity as a separate section. patsw 17:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least two editors disagree with you. Since people seem to be paying attention now that it's been done, perhaps we could have a referendum for consensus? Ford MF 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Their disagreement has not been articulated as reasons why the deleted section was in violation of the policies. It was a "popular culture" section and not a "trivia" section. There's nothing to discuss yet, much less a consensus to act. patsw 18:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what to do other than to point you towards Wikipedia:Trivia sections. THe information that was there was at best a "random collection of facts". Ford MF 18:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between a popular culture section and a trivia section. A listing of the mentions of KG or a fictionalized KG in book, films, plays, etc. is not trivia. patsw 19:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
popular culture section is an essay, not a guideline. And at any rate all it does is explain that there is debate over what constitutes trivia and what should be done with it. From the second paragraph: Officially, such sections are discouraged but not forbidden.
A good guideline (from Wikipedia:Handling trivia) about estimating the value of items in similar sections: For instance, in the South Park episode "Pink Eye," the space station Mir lands on Kenny McCormick, killing him. The overall importance of this piece of information may be hard to define, but it is certainly important to Pink Eye (South Park episode), somewhat important to Kenny McCormick, and not very important to Mir.
In this case, I did what I thought most prudent: I moved into the body of the article items in the section that I thought were important to the subject of the article, and removed the ones I thought irrelevant. I'm not obdurate on this point. Certain of the items on the list, like the non-notable plays from non-notable playwrights, and a passing mention in a movie, were obvious article filler. Other things, like the Harlan Ellison mention, I thought were iffy. Ultimately I took it out because it was uncited. Ford MF 13:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New paper on the murder

An interesting paper on this topic has just been published: http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/people/uploads/MarkLevine20070604T095238.pdf . It could be a source of more information for this article. 66.251.84.28 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Imho, the article is very POV trying to explain away the Kew Gardens residents' inaction. Come on, guys, they did hear her screaming "He stabbed me" ! Assuming the windows were shut, how loud would you scream if you were stabbed with a knife and if your life were in danger ? Anyway, if they knew it was her, that means they heard the scream. Actually, I can't see why the number 38 should be unrealistically large or a surprise at all. Such sh*t happens all the time, this story got in the spotlight of the media just because of the lethal outcome. When I was at school, a classmate of mine once got severely beaten by a bully (we were about 17 years old at the time), so he was lying bleeding in front of a whole crowd of his peers (there were more than 38 people), no one approached him, they just stared - and I wouldn't be surprised if they continued to just stare even if he were dying. As for the Genovese case, it's just the same - call it "diffusion of responsibility"/"bystander effect" or whatever, but the thing is that usually people just don't give a f*ck, that's it. Stalker 1986 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of perpetator's ethnicity?

I added that the killer was of african-american decent and local. Why was that removed without comment, and at the same time you let the victim's family background stand??

Born in New York City; the daughter of Rachel (née Petrolli), and Vincent Andronelle Genovese, she was the oldest of five children in a middle-class Italian American family and was raised in Brooklyn.

Staalorm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.97.37 (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is seriously lacking in information about the killer. People reading articles such as this one want to know the details about the perpetrator: who he was, his background, previous convictions, motive etc. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is his ethnicity in anyway important to the article?74.227.63.107 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you care so much? Who cares if hers is mentioned? If it's not important, it shouldn't be there. If her's isn't important either, take that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.185.168 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about her, so it makes sense that it'd include demographic information on her. There is all kinds of information available about the killer, so why are we focusing on his race/ethnicity? It adds nothing of value to the article because race was not a motivating factor. I'm taking it out and it should be left out. Why does anyone feel it necessary to bring race into this when it wasn't important to the case??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.185.246 (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do people keep re-inserting the perpetrator's race? IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ARTICLE. Her ethnicity is discussed because the article about her, and just about every biographical entry includes information about the individual's background. Why do people feel the need to emphasize his race? It doesn't matter. Whoever keeps putting it in, please explain why it matters and is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.214.248 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to see it mentioned, it is correct that the killer's race should be left OUT of the article; that is standard nowadays to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes. This convention results from a historic media tendency to report the race of a criminal if they are black (e.g. 'a black man did x') and not mention if it they are white (just say e.g. 'a man did x'), at least in countries with a white majority (see media bias). If the person was on the run from the authorities, their appearance could be reported, and as mentioned above, if it was relevant e.g. in a race-hate crime. Otherwise it should be removed as it gives an implication that the racial background and the crime are somehow linked. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have altered it in a way which I hope is acceptable to others; I suppose people could argue along the lines of 'why take out ethnicity but include occupation and age?' I would argue that neither of these are subject to negative media and social stereotypes in the same way. Age & gender are certainly relevant to the crime, occupation possibly not but I have left it in for now.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's simple: we report the attacker's race/ethnicity for the same reason that we report the victim's - because it has been reported by the media. --Michael C. Price talk 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper.Lord Spring Onion (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
OK I don't want to have a version war here; I have had a look at other articles on famous murder cases such as Murder of Sarah Payne, Murder of Laci Peterson, Murder of James Bulger, Murder of Meredith Kercher and although this is something of a straw poll, glancing through the ones which first come up in the search box, it seems to be standard NOT to mention ethnicity on Wikipedia on such cases. When it is mentioned such as Murder of Stephen Lawrence, Murder of Emmett Till then there is clearly a racial element to the killing. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 08:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion then would be that in the interests of consistency, ethnicity is left out for a period of two weeks, in order to give interested members of the wikipedia community a chance to see this discussion and add any further comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Spring Onion (talk • contribs) 08:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I have tried twice to remove the ethnicity in accordance with the majority of views above (and consistency in Wikepedia as commented), but it has been reverted. My view is that the information is as irrelevant to the crime as the murderer's favourite kind of ice cream or what the name of his first grade teacher was. Removing this irrelevance makes it a better article. It does also contribute to racism - I notice none of the contributors who want it inserted seem to be in any hurry to put Caucasian into the info on murderers on some of the articles that I link to above. I rest my case - unfortunately it seems we must live with this bias on WP. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I Should add - I'm not suggesting that the editors are themselves racist, I am sure they include the information in good faith, a an accurate detail. But just because something is correct, does not mean it is relevant, and in this case is also misleading by insinuating that the crime is somehow linked to his racial background. It used to be standard practice in the newspapers to label ethnic minorities this way, but thank goodness those days are behind us, at least where I live. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you've got sources saying that the perpetrators in those crimes were Caucasians go ahead and add that. In the meantime, there is no need to remove sourced information here. - Schrandit (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would I add it, when I have been arguing that race should be EXCLUDED from articles on crimes where race was not relevant to the events? The comparison was just made to highlight the risk of Caucasian bias, if race is only mentioned when the criminal is black (see Bias_in_wikipedia). I would always try to remove irrelevant and/or misleading information when editing, and only add things which improve the article. Is there a political agenda here? Lord Spring Onion (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting to note that this argument was started by the user Nietzsche 2, a sock puppet for another account that has now been banned. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a simple man, if you're trying to say something just say it. - Schrandit (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, what I mean is this: given his later ban, I wonder if the user may have been a trouble maker who may have inserted the information to cause an argument, but I can't be sure. People do such things sometimes.
In terms of the question about the killer's age, is it relevant if ethnicity is not? Not pivotal perhaps, but the man's age does affect his ability to carry out a violent attack (a 92-year-old could not have done what a 29-year-old did) so I think it provides useful context. I think anything relevant - his gender, motivation, sexual preference etc - should be included. Anything irrelevant - his ethnicity, favourite ice-cream flavour - should be removed. Sometimes it is hard to decide whether things are relevant or not, but in the case of ethnicity, it is not only irrelevant but also MISLEADING, as it implies it was a racially motivated crime. I also think her ethnicity should be taken out. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The argument that race is irrelevant is speculation. Perhaps the killer's race was relevant; perhaps as a downtrodden oppressed "brother" he vented his anger on a "white bitch" - amongst other reasons. Who knows? I for sure don't, and I doubt anyone else does. So her ethnicity stays, as does her killer's. When he gets his own article we can move his details there, but until then the data stays.
--Michael C. Price talk 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You say "who knows? I for sure don't"... I remind you that this is an encyclopedia, and if nobody can verify something then it should not be included. It appears that nobody has any evidence that race was relevant - why should mere speculation appear in the article?
Your point that "the data stays" comes across as very arrogant - on my count, to date, 6 users have spoken in favour of removing it and 4 in favour on this discussion page. As there is no consensus for inclusion - why should you get to decide? I refer you to the above wikipedia link on the subject, which says "Sometimes voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken." Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
But at the same time, we are also told that Wikipedia is not a democracy. As for my "who knows" comment, I think you misunderstand it; my point was that irrelevance had not been proved, not that relevance had been proved. My original point still stands, we mentioned Kitty's ethicity, so we should mention Winston's - especially since it is well sourced.
Would anyone be objecting if Winston was a Nobel laureate, and described as an African-American? I doubt it. Sorry, I just have a low tolerance of political correctness. Perhaps we should delete the fact that Winston is a man, since such reporting perpetuates the sterotype that all men are rapists? --Michael C. Price talk 16:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Kind of been through that already haven't we? Yes it's relevant that he is a man. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And the other points.....? --Michael C. Price talk 21:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Upon reflection the relevancy argument is completely bogus. You could equally well argue that the fact that the attack took place in New York is irrelevant. Ed's bar - irrelevant, her childhood, background - all irrelevant. Indeed, almost every fact about the case could be deemed irrelevant, yet we don't remove them for that reason. --Michael C. Price talk 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to make two points: 1. Yes, the way the article is written unnecessarily mentions the race of the perpetrator in order to add a racist slant. Perhaps if it were mentioned in the later Perpetrator section, it would be less so.

I agree it adds a racist slant. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

2. You people have no lives, probably have Asperger's Syndrome and desperately need to get laid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.31.82 (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I teach psychology and would like to see accurate, non-misleading articles..insult me for that if you wish :P Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Winston's race is irrelevant. At the very least, it is not so important as to merit mention in the first sentence. The argument his race may be relevant to his motivation is not just baseless- psychiatric evaluation suggests necrophilia. With respect to the argument that stating Kitty's ethnic background is ground for including Winston's race: the article is set up in such a way that focuses on Kitty. There is a short biographical section on Kitty's life before the night of her murder. If the details given regarding her life were to imply that corresponding details should be provided about Winston's life, then his parents' names, quantity of siblings, education, and other details are necessary as well. It seems like these details would be harder to justify. Basementthought (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The following external links have found to be dead, so have been removed:

Retrodouggy (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move two for the move none against and seems to be a convention Salix (talk): 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese → Murder of Kitty Genovese —

This article's notablity stems from her being murdered, not from anything she did. As such, the title should be Murder of Kitty Genovese, as is the case for other Wikipedia articles where the murder is notable, but the victim was not. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)I would agree with that.
You can type in 'Murder of' to the search box to see the kind of thing that comes up. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

More information

Since I lived in Kew Gardens the time, and knew one of the policemen that worked the case, I can attest that the citizens failed to act to prevent her murder. It was a case of either fear or apathy, and a great example of human failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickadds (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Née?

Why is this used instead of maiden name or birth name for her mother? I had never heard this word used before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.39.230 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

née means "born" -- is a tad bit old-fashioned, but is still in use. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to keep this unreferenced trivia on a serious article? It's been marked for improvement for 6 months but my removal of it has been reverted twice. Any reasons to keep it? --John (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Because people might want to read it? --Michael C. Price talk 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And the fact that it contravenes our guidelines? And has been labeled as such for half a year? That raise any red flags with you at all? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --John (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The first item I looked at, (Watchmen+KG) had loads of gscholar hits. --Michael C. Price talk 01:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, good. Maybe we can use some of them if they help that one item to pass WP:V. WP:IPC is a useful essay on the subject which may help you understand the sort of non-trivial coverage we are looking for here, mentions in passing won't do it. Lists of unreferenced trivia in general need to be removed, or integrated into the article with citations, as the template which has been there for six months says. If there's any stuff you want to keep, I suggest adding proper refs to the article or here so we can form a consensus to include them, or not. Have at it and good luck. --John (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed what seemed the most trivial of the pop culture refs, the nip/tuck one. I'd question whether there is a need for three or more Tv/film refs supposedly 'based' on the case. Watchmen? Well hm. I'm a fan; it does have a big cultural impact, but the KG murder is not exactly vital to the series/films. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Depends what you mean by "vital" I guess. I'd say it was important to the plot.--Michael C. Price talk 06:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored Malcolm Gladwell's reference. We don't have to wait for his statement to appear in a book review to reference it; the book itself is sufficiently notable. --Michael C. Price talk 06:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

According to you? Or is there a guideline you can quote regarding this? In your opinion, is any book which mentions the affair inherently notable for mention in the article? If so, I think that's a minority view. --John (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Provided it is a 'real' book, and not some vanity publication, then yes. Of course that doesn't mean that it must be mentioned here, just that it is admissable. Look at, say, quark; plenty of statements are referenced to books directly, not to book reviews. --Michael C. Price talk 06:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As I was asking, what is the basis for this opinion of yours? And, I don't see the evidence you speak of at the quark article. There are references to scientific books (non-fiction), but I don't see any trivia "mentions" referenced to themselves there as you seem to be proposing. Am I missing something? --John (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
What part of is any book which mentions the affair inherently notable for mention in the article? did I not answer? The "trivia section" issue is a red herring; the bar is not set higher in trivia sections. --Michael C. Price talk 06:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You haven't stated whether this is your own opinion or whether you believe it is a project consensus, although I have now asked you to do so thee times. You incorrectly stated that a particular other article followed the practice you wish this one to; why did you do that? It makes it even harder to take your other statements seriously. --John (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Quark (and the rest of WP) follows the practice of suporting statements from notable books, amongst other sources. And I explained why your trivia question was a red herring. Thus I have implicitly answered your question.
If you don't like the answer, post the disputed statement to the appropriate noticeboard and we can take it from there.
--Michael C. Price talk 17:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's best. There's a difference, incidentally, between stating something and explaining something; it can often be the difference between resolving and not resolving a dispute, as in this case. I'll try asking some other people and see if we can sort this out. --John (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disputed statement

Is the statement:

Malcolm Gladwell refers to the [murder of Kitty Genovese] case and the "bystander effect" as evidence of contextual cues for human responses.[1]
  1. ^ Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, ISBN 0-316-31696-2

sufficiently sourced? --Michael C. Price talk 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, do you understand the difference between "verified" and "verifiable"? --Michael C. Price talk 05:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

            • WP:SOURCES says that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Logic would suggest that books that would be accepted as reliable sources for the events they describe, may be used as sources of information about themselves.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page

In popular culture

Unsourced, moved from article to talk page. Do not add back to main article space, unless properly sourced to reliable secondary sources. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the same editor has now replaced this material (twice), even though the consensus at WP:RSN seemed fairly conclusively against it. Per WP:BURDEN, the editor wishing to retain or insert the contested material has to demonstrate a consensus that it should be in the article. So far, it seems like only this one editor has argued to retain the material, and they have made no serious arguments to do so, seemingly relying on their own gut feeling that it should remain, and saying that it can be verified but not actually doing so. The one attempt to reference the Gladwell book was to the primary source of the book itself, rather than to a reliable secondary source. I wouldn't dream of using my admin hat here as I have been editing the article, but is this about to become a user conduct issue? I can see incorporating one or two of these factoids in prose, but the idea of having an unreferenced list of trivia for months on an article like this seems offensive, both in relation to the values of the project we are working on here, and to the seriousness of the subject. What can we best do next? --John (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Get your facts straight, John. I added already another reference, or did you miss that in your blind revert? A reference which supported two of the items, BTW. --Michael C. Price talk 05:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Still more refs added, BTW. --Michael C. Price talk 05:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you mistakenly used only one citation as verification of two listed items is, really, a problem on your end, no one else's. Items in lists are supposed to be individually cited; using one citation for two items is not clear. We do not require others to read our minds - it is our responsibiity to make things clear for others. Also, even if that one citation was intended for verification of two items, the other four items were still not verified, and could legitimately be removed on that basis. John Carter (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Was not a mistake. The ref supported both items. --Michael C. Price talk 08:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard--Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

John - you deleted a citation, and stated as the reason for this deletion: "we don't link to commercial sites". Please could you advise us here, under which Wikipedia guideline you made this deletion.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternate psychological interpretations

Considering the main reason this case is so famous is its prominence in the psychological literature its got to be important to have some details of alternate viewpoints than the conventional bystander intervention one. I've added a brief mention to Cherry's work although this could probably use some fleshing out. BarryNL (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Exaggeration about "every" textbook

In the "popular culture" section there is a quoted statement by Carrie Rentschler that (The story of the witnesses who did nothing) "is taught in every introduction to psychology textbook in the United States and Britain" (emphasis added). I have in my possession an introductory psychology textbook published in the United States, "Psychology: Themes and variations, 7th edition" by Wayne Weiten that does not mention the murder, even though it has a section on bystander intervention (p. 662). Therefore, although probably true that the vast majority of textbooks do mention the murder, the quoted statement is an exaggeration and might be misleading to readers. --Smcg8374 07:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcg8374 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the statement is mildly hyperbolic but, as you acknowledge, fundamentally true, so what's the big deal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Radio dramatization

I don't think that this should be added to the article, yet, but it may be of interest to some people. The radio drama Theater Five broadcast an episode titled "The Scream" on August 31. 1964, about five months after the murder. It is obvious that the episode was inspired by the Genovese killing, and a condemnation of those who (allegedly) heard the girl in distress and did nothing. It has a typical twist ending to punish such people.

I was surprised to hear this story (I actually thought the program pre-dated the Genovese killing), and thought others would want to consider an addition to the article mentioning it. The problem is that, as far as I can tell, the program is not well-remembered, so I doubt we can find a reliable source saying that it is about the Genovese murder. It is obviously inspired by that event, but I think we'd still need a citation to justify its inclusion in the article. Phiwum (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting, and if someone could come up with a citation to connect the program with the incident, it would be a good addition to the article. Have you tried Googling for one? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I see we have a bunch of unreferenced trivia in the article, and even a YouTube video. Per WP:V I am going to tag this as unsourced. Any that cannot be sourced to valid third party references will have to be removed in a week or so. --John (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

John< you know full well that popular culture entries -- not trivia -- source themselves. Take the You Tube video out, the rest are fine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well said, Ken.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
So when was WP:V deprecated? --John (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 2011: The folk punk band Andrew Jackson Jihad mentions Genovese in their song "Big Bird" on their album Knife Man. Seriously? A "mention"? This is precisely the sort of trivial coverage that we do not do. WP:IPC says "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable facts of interest to a broad audience of readers. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject. ... However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. Put another way, if we were to cover every trivial "mention" that this case has merited in the last 50 years, we would need an entire article for these "mentions" alone. --John (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Which why such sections are often spun off into articles. Problem? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a problem so long as all such material conforms with our verifiability policy. The issue here is that some of these items do not. --John (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Since each item is a straightforward description, and is supported by the media item which is described as the source, in what way do they not adhere to WP:V? They are easily verifiable by simple reference to the recording or TV program or film they describe, in exactly the same way that a fact supported by a source can be verified by reference to that source. For a fuller explication, please see this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a very perceptive essay. On an issue like this though I favour WP:IPC; nobody is disputing the existence of these popular culture items, but their significance to the subject of this article can best be demonstrated by showing third-party references. If not, an article like this could easily be filled up with trivia, which I am sure you would agree would not be good. --John (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that a section full of trivial references would not be a good idea. But it does not take a third-party source to determine what is and isn't "significant", such things can be determined by the consensus of Wikipedia editors, just like the addition of any fact to any article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Uh huh. Well I am challenging the existence of a consensus that a book "about" the subject which does not have its own Wikipedia article is automatically worthy of a mention here, without third party references. --John (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Challenge away, right here. In the meantime, I have restored the status quo to the article. Your Bold edit has been Reverted and we are in the Discussion phase. Your argument that this somehow violates WP:V is specious at best, since the source is the media item which can be verified by anyone with access to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
By status quo you mean the version last edited by User:74.133.197.100 on 12 April which added the unreferenced nugget 2011: Andrew Jackson Jihad's song "Big Bird" from their album Knife Man contains the lyric "I'm afraid of the social laziness that let Kitty Genovese die."? Did you honestly think that was worth reverting back into the article, or did you just not bother to check? --John (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Watchmen

It's a very minor point in relation to the article I know, but wasn't Rorschach's claim to have been inspired by the Genovese murder a lie coming from his earlier sessions with the psychiatrist when he was practiced answers? IIRC the psychiatrist even flags this up in-story. While the story isn't directly tackled it's given alongside a number of things we know are lies. IMHO rephrasing as "Protagonist Rorschach claimed to have originally became a masked vigilante because of it." is a lot more accurate, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.111.121 (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rosenthal Book

The link to the Rosenthal article leads to an article about an athlete. Is it supposed to lead here instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._M._Rosenthal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyerhell (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

reference 27 not round

Reference 27 links to a page not found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.220 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the justification for mentioning perpetrator's race?

I can't see the justicification for mentioning the perpetrator's race. Unless I missed it, or it was removed from the current version of the article, race is never mentioned as an element of the story. There needs to be some justification in the content of the article that makes race relevant. The argument that his race is a referenced fact is not significant justification as it still needs context. Why do we need to know his race? That must be answered or else there are serious POV issues. For example, if there were accusations in the media that he was dealt with unfairly because of his race, or that there was excessive media coverage due to his being black and she was white (although, note that we only know that from the photo as it is not mentioned in the article!), such would give relevance. I read the previous debate of this from 2010 and found reasons for inclusion wanting. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

We mention the victim's race and ethnicity, why not the murderer's? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
First, where is the victims race or ethnicity mentioned? I can't see that. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Blind, or can't read? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 22:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should race of perpetrator be included.

An odd RfC in which it is difficult to count heads. On the one hand, we have inclusionists, but the main argument seems to be that they do not believe in a reason for exclusion. On the other hand, we have exclusionists, who argue that nowhere in the relevant sources is it clear that the perpetrator's race is in fact an issue here, in the crime or in the reception thereof. In between, we have a lot of name-calling. Now, it is a fact that not every detail need be included, only those that are relevant, and no convincing evidence is presented that this particular fact is relevant; in addition, claims that this is UNDUE are not counterbalanced by evidence that it is in fact DUE, that it is relevant. Regentspark's comment hits the mark, and points at appropriate policy (you may insert your own wikilinked conjugations of alphabet soup): "it is unnecessary and undue and this is borne out by the fact that neither the original NYT article that publicized the case, nor the one that revisits it now, mention Mosley's race." Drmies (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the race of the perpetrator be included in the article when there is no racial aspect present in the article? This was a murder which became famous because it was felt it highlighted modern urban societies' lack of empathy. However, there is no racial aspect evident in the article itself. Yet the race continues to be inserted (most recently as "an African-American business machine operator"), usually without credible explanation. I think a consensus is needed here. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know a whole lot about this case, but I tend to think that race may well be relevant here. I strongly suspect that the fearful reaction of the public here was exacerbated by the race of the perpetrator and the climate of the day. This is only a half-informed opinion, so let's not take it too seriously, but you should realize that some persons who think that race is relevant are not thereby being racist. (In order to justify this half-thought, we'd want to find an actual reference that says that race mattered here, and then the debate would be over. I'm not volunteering to search for such a reference, so take this comment for what it's worth.) Phiwum (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. My first instinct is it likely should be included as the news accounts likely included the information. But did they or was this simply not an issue? The focus on our article is the lack of awareness of the incident rather than the attack itself so it could go either way. What do the most reliable sources support stating? Insomesia (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no harm in having the race there so long as it is not the point of the statement. The sentence should be descriptive enough and mentioning the race certainly helps. Ayzmo (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the ethnicity of the victim is discussed, and is relevant, as is her sexuality, I see absolutely no grounds for removal of the murderer's race. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify my concerns. Yes, we do identify the victim as "Italian", but that is just one part of detailing her life. That she was Italian is mentioned as part of a bigger picture, of fleshing out her life so we have a better idea of the person. However, there is nothing like that for the perpetrator. Nothing of his family life, background, etc. I would have no issue with mentioning his race if it was as part of details of his personal life, but it's not. To be blunt, the article says just that he was a murderer and black. So if we're not giving details of his life, the why include that specific fact that he was black?BashBrannigan (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You are asking that a factual matter be deleted from the article, and to do that you'd better have a very good reason. I've yet to see one. You're also ignoring that the article refers to what the murderer did for a living. If you'd like to flesh out his profile, and give a more rounded picture of the killer as a person, do some research and expand the description, but that really has nothing to do with whether his race should be listed or not. My policy would be that this long after the fact, and well after conviction, there's no possible reason for such a fact to be removed except for some extremely over-extended political correctness. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I contend I've given good reasons regardless the cliched dismissal that I'm being politically correct. The comment by Ayzmo is in favor of inclusion of his race if "so long as it is not the point of the statement", which is exactly my concern. The comment by Insomesia seems to support inclusion if most media reports reported his race. These are two big Ifs.BashBrannigan (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved RFC editor here. I agree that race should be included as long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE. Andrew (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • If racism was a factor in the case, or media surrounding the case, then it should be noted and discussed in the article. If his race is mentioned in the majority of the news articles of the time about the event, then it should be included. I can't see why it wouldn't be included? — raekyT 14:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
But that is exactly the point. You're saying it should be if racism was a factor in the case , but nowhere in the article does it say racism was a factor.BashBrannigan (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that as long as the the victim is described as Italian American, and that there are references to her sexual preference, referring to the perpetrator as African American seems like an appropriate inclusion. Cheers!RichardMills65 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

{an extended comment follows}

BashBrannigan's question is whether mention of Winston Moseley's race is relevant to the editorial context. I am terribly disappointed by the responses here:

  • Insomuch as I lean toward the preservation of factual material, I am aligned with Beyond My Ken--but he undermines the argument by weighing it only against "over-extended political correctness".
  • At least Phiwum is honest about offering half-formed opinions without being willing to research any of the facts that justify them.
  • Raeky and Insomesia are unapologetically non-committal, exacerbating their unwillingness to investigate the questions they raise by proceeding to advocate on behalf of only one answer--the one not supported by the facts.
  • Ayzmo begs the question, essentially offering that mention of race is not gratuitous so long as it is not gratuitous.
  • RichardMills65 seem to think that mention of the victim's race makes the perpetrator's race relevant--as though any crime involving parties of different races is necessarily motivated by race.
  • Andrew's rationale is similar, invoking Wikipedia policy vis–à–vis balance.

Factual support for BashBrannigan's unease follows:

  • Seminal to our understanding of the bystander effect--also called the Genovese syndrome--is Martin Gansberg's New York Times article "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police". [2] While the article presents distortions that have since been debunked,[3] the cultural significance of the Genovese murder derives entirely from the facts as presented by Gansberg.[4]
  • In fact, no mention of Winston Moseley's race is made by the Gansberg article:

    Six days later, the police arrested Winston Moseley, a 29-year-old business machine operator, and charged him with homicide. Moseley had no previous record. He is married, has two children and owns a home at 133-19 Sutter Avenue, South Ozone Park, Queens. On Wednesday, a court committed him to Kings County Hospital for psychiatric observation.[2]

  • Despite a demonstrated willingness to sensationsalise[5] --and unencumbered by the conservative bête noire of political correctness--contemporary media found the question of Moseley's race to be of no relevance in its canonical account.

I have declared my bias toward the preservation of information. Mention of Moseley's race in the Wikipedia article text is probably gratuitous, but the debate can be mooted by providing a photograph of Mosely alongside that of Genovese.

What remains is to source a public domain photograph of the perpetrator.

Patronanejo (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
__________________________
  1. ^ Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, ISBN 0-316-31696-2
  2. ^ a b Gansberg, Martin (March 27, 1964). "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police". New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
  3. ^ Manning, Rachel (1 January 2007). "The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses" (PDF). American Psychologist. 62 (6): 555–562. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Rasenberger, Jim (February 08, 2004). "Kitty, 40 Years Later". New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Henderson, David. "SuperFreakonomics, III". "Permanent Link" (name of column). Library of Economics and Liberty. Retrieved 18 December 2012.
{end extended comment}
  • Comment Patronanejo has expressed the issues fairly well above. On the one hand, we have the undeniable fact that the perpetrator was black but, on the other hand, that doesn't seem to be germane when the murder is known mainly for its aftereffects rather than for the people involved. On the balance, I'd say it is unnecessary and undue and this is borne out by the fact that neither the original NYT article that publicized the case, nor the one that revisits it now, mention Mosley's race. (It doesn't help that the citation for African American in the article doesn't actually mention his race either!). --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment An RfC is to solicit input. Nowhere do we require all who offer input to be versed in minute aspects including the sourcing behind article statements. My opinion was that we should follow where the sources lead and it seems there is consensus that the race of the attacker is not that germane to the notability of the incident. I do think putting a picture of the attacker is a very bad idea (rewarding someone for doing a vicious crime). Insomesia (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're saying. I was pointing out that the fact that it was already in the article is not justication to keep it. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I'm not sure what your point is. Anyway, the issue /now/ is whether it should be removed, and the criteria for removal are the inverse of inclusion. Take the race issue out of the equation, and look at some of the other data "family man", "machine operator", his name, age etc. Are you saying this should all be deleted/not included? Because if you're not then the ethnicity should stay as well. And if you are then I disagree, since it would mean wikipedia should be stripped of about 99.9% of its content.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The race of the perpetrator is as pertinent as any other information about him, just as the ethnicity of the victim is pertinent to her description. It can only be a political correct oversensitivity which demands that it be removed. That is not the concern of encyclopedia of facts. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
"The race of the perpetrator is as pertinent as any other information about him". Where does that come from? We never automatically include a person's race in Wikipedia. It always needs justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BashBrannigan (talk • contribs) 9:04, 24 December 2012‎ (UTC)
And where do I find the policy that says that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
None of the four sources listed above by Patronanejo (at least two of which are significant ones) mention his race. --regentspark (comment) 23:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Have you looked at those? ONly one is actually about the murder, the other three are about the "bystander effect", not about the murder per se. In any case these mention his race, and most of these. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Those references aren't relevant since they don't provide content to the article. It is insufficient to simply provide references to the fact that he was black as you must also explain why the fact that he was black is relevant. This article is about the murder and its consequences for the public at the time it is not about any other later analysis. There is nothing in the article to indicate a racial element to the murder. BashBrannigan (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No, relevance is irrelevant. How, for example, is his (or her) name relevant? It isn't, of course, yet we include them in the article.-- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 09:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is it so important to you to have the race included? --John (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Why is it so important to you to have the race excluded? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 12:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked you first, but I'll answer anyway if it is difficult for you. I believe that race should be excluded because race is a social construct whose importance has been greatly exaggerated over the years by various groups to further their own racist aims, including but not limited to the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. I prefer to position myself as a scientist with the majority of the world's science community who don't consider "race" an especially important marker in humans. In this specific case it seems that the main sources the article depends on also do not consider race to be important enough to mention. So, with that in mind, why is it so important to you to have the race included? --John (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
@John: Regarding the scientific view of race, I am inclined to agree with you, although I do believe that the scientific non-existence of race is a claim that has been somewhat exaggerated under the influence of modern political correctness. (And I say that as a flaming liberal, albeit one dedicated to the existence of reality.) However, this is not an article about science, it is an article about an event within a specific society, the murder of one human being by another in contemporary America. As such, "social constructs" are very important, and should not be excluded.

On another topic, to the vandal who removed my comments with the edit summary calling them "racist rants", I would be taking precisely the same position if Moseley was white and that fact was attempting to be excluded from the article. Of course, I don't expect you (not you, John, the vandal) to believe that, but it is nevertheless true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John, for the explanation. Now we can see that your actions are motivated by your own well meaning personal agenda, and not any desire to implement wiki guidelines. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 01:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome Michael. I'd rather be considered well-meaning than be a filthy POV-pushing racist though, eh? And as regards "Wiki guidelines", we don't use the term if the sources don't. Case closed, I think. --John (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Case closed, I think, since it is sourced. I could elaborate, but your continued selective obtusness indicates I'd be wasting by time. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Folks, these personal zings are not helpful. Race is always a very difficult subject to deal with, and bringing in personalities just makes it that much harder. Perhaps everyone here can agree that we should assume good faith about each other, and trust that no one is arguing their case with any kind of bad motivation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I shouldn't have let the claim that the perp's race is unsourced irritate me. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say the perpetrator's race was unsourced, but that the key sources that we depend on do not consider it a significant enough thing to mention, chief among them being the Gansberg, Martin (March 27, 1964). "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police". New York Times. It was not regarded as a racially motivated crime at the time, so why would the perpetrator's (or the victim's) race be considered important now? Seems like (at best) WP:SYNTH to me. --John (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, the Gansberg article is primarily focused on the "38", what has come to be called the "bystander effect". There are six sentences about Moseley, approximately 1/15th of the article. It was also in the more sedate and intellectual Times - if we really want to know how the crime was perceived at the time, the populist Daily News and the (at the time) middle-brow Post would be the places to look. Unfortunately, unlike the Times, they haven't digitized their archives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
The race is just an incidental item, reported incidentally at the time. And that's how it is reported here. So what's the big deal? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is sedate and intellectual and does not aspire to be populist or middle-brow. As an incidental item the race has no place here, any more than the perpetrator's shoe size would. Glad we've cleared that up. --John (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
@HJohn: Please, you're equating the murderer's shoe size with his rsce??? That's really the height of political correctness. It's really a problem3 that some Wikipedia contributors cannot distinguish between correlations which are significant and those which are not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is a problem, and I would see you as part of the problem in this instance. It's your contention that the killer's race is a significant part of this story; but that does not make it suitable for Wikipedia unless many real-world sources agree with your contention, as you are not a source. What happened, by the way to assuming good faith? When you say "political correctness" like that it makes me think of a rather stuffy, older, naive racist, like Steve Coogan's character Alan Partridge. Presumably this was not the effect you were searching for. Please restrict your arguments to those based on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and previous consensuses. --John (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
John, please, you're not acquitting youself well here. Shortly after my plea for calm and dispassionate discussion, you're accusing me of prejudice, and assuming bad faith to my motivations. Race is, unfortunately, a distinct factor in many violent crimes, including black-on-black assaults. We should not be afraid to report the mere facts of a crime, out of fear of breaching political correctness. Such data is important to know, if we are to act to counter such violence. The suppression of such information -- out of the very best of notivations, I might add -- distorts our understanding of the reality behind the events, and prevents us from acting on them in ways that, ultimately, will benefit society. In the meantime, we are an encyclopedia, a font of information, and we should never be in the situation where we suppress information merely because it's inconvenient to certain parties to have it reported. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:SOAPBOX to me. You've made your wishes clear for the direction you think this article should take, and I respectfully disagree with you. You've made it clear that you think this is "political correctness" on my part, and I've explained how poorly that goes over with me. I'd say we are done here. --John (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Without agreeing with your characterization of my views, I concur that we're unlikely to sway each other on this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
As you see, it is pointless engaging with John, as I have found previously. Amusing that he cites WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:SOAPBOX, after his speech about how race is just a social construct; he should tell that to my GP, who prescribes meds according to race. As we (should) all know shoe size (or race) gets mentioned here if it is reported in the sources. Shoe size is not mentioned, ethnicity is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 16:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
That's fine Michael, we get that you are a racist (and maybe so is your GP too?) and that you want to push this article in a direction that gratifies your racism. Tell me, if shoe size was mentioned in a source, would you be against including it? Meanwhile, back in the real world, if the mainstream sources the article depends on (and remember, but for the coverage in the Gansberg article this would just have been another NYC crime statistic) do not see fit to mention the race issue, neither should we. Very simple to understand. --John (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I just want an informative article, something you seem inacapable of understanding. Shame you have to call anyone you disagree with a racist, but that's your problem, not mine. (And you should acquaint yourself with basic medicine/biology before soapboxing.) -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I am well-acquainted with the basic medicine/biology of racism, Michael, and you are not the first person I have seen trying to push it into places where it does not belong. I am also well-acquainted with Wikipedia's rules such as WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK and above all WP:BLP. I note too that you were indefinitely topic-banned from the area of abortion in November 2011; perhaps it is you who need to better acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's expectations about conduct and discussion in a delicate area that overlaps between medicine and society, and on which you have perhaps got opinions that make it hard for you to edit dispassionately? In any case, I recognise that we are veering off-topic for this discussion. I shall disengage from here for now unless there is more to be said on the proper subject. --John (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
So you know that some drugs have race specific effects? Hence GPs prescribe drugs based on your race (and other attributes)? Regards conduct, calling someone racist for correcting your ignorance of medical matters is, er, strange, to put it mildly. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 21:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

When there is an argument about whether something is notable or not we fall back to what the reliable sources say. We have editors giving their own personal opinions that it is important because the murder was racially charged, but we are lacking any reliable sources to prove so. Saying you want to include it because you're opposed to political correctness is a valid reason for including something on your own personal blog but it is not a valid reason to include something per Wikipedia's rules. There are all sorts of facts we could include, but this encyclopedia cannot include all known facts about every topic. When which facts to include become disputed we must fallback to our policies. The motives for adding the man's race do not seem to fall in line with Wikipedia policy, so we should not include it. If we get a reliable source to talk about some racial aspect to the crime then by all means add it. DreamGuy (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your misrepresentations are too numerous to address. Perhaps you should go back and actually read the talk page in a bit more depth? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 20:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My problem with the closure on grounds of "relevance", is that this is a news story, not some scientific proof, and relevance in a news story article is ill-defined concept. (I made this point earlier and it has not been addressed.) Is Kitty's age relevant? Or that she was a bar manager? Or a lesbian? Yet we mention these - along with her ethnicity - so what gives? This is a news story, and news stories are stories because readers want the details. Also, it doesn't seem so hard to do a head count. I make it 7-3 in favour of inclusion, with 1 or 2 maybes. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 07:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Go and do something more useful than fight a battle you have already lost. --John (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael, with all due respect, it's over. It may be that you can do math better than me, but it's not the math that's the problem, it's statements like "I don't know a whole lot about this case, but I tend to think that race may well be relevant here" and "My first instinct is it likely should be included as the news accounts likely included the information. But did they or was this simply not an issue?". I assume you are "counting" those as "in favour of inclusion"--really, one can't. They are not unequivocal inclusion votes and raise more questions than they answer. Moreover, I assume you're including comments like "I agree that race should be included as long as it does not violate WP:UNDUE." That's fine--but this participant did not address how the inclusion does not violate UNDUE, and since this (as John points out) is not a vote, such a statement can't have the full weight as is carried by the more complete answers of John and Beyond My Ken. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unclear

Under the "Public Reaction" section, there is this sentence/paragraph, "This kind of case has been inducted into Law Studies at High School." This is unclear. Since "High School" is capatalized does this mean it is referering to a proper noun. Or was the capatalization in error. Is Law Studies similar to Civics? All of this is unclear.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.50.36 (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2006‎ (UTC)

Why is there a picture here?

A picture of Kitty Genovese would be useful to illustrate an article "Kitty Genovese". This is not that article. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's what the article used to be called! -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 10:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Having her picture puts a face to an article that describes an event in her life and I think it is totally relevant. Cheers! RichardMills65 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you if you could find another one which meets all the requisites of image inclusion on Wikipedia, this article would be an ideal host for such an image. Please feel free to suggest such an image that is freely available and we'll include it. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Pop culture

'Big Bird' on Knife Man by Andrew Jackson Jihad refers to 'the social laziness that let Kitty Genovese die'. 90.195.117.230 (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Our guideline suggests not including trivial mentions like this. --John (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
@John: I don't believe it qualifies as a "trivial mention", in that it's referring to the societal consequences of the Kitty Genovese murder. If you check my editing history, you'll see that I've drawn a fairly hard line on references which are just incidental In fact, I'm in dispute right now on one involving The Sherry-Netherland, but I believe this one is legitimate, and should be allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That's fine; we can agree to disagree, but as a minimum, each item needs a real-world reference to establish that someone other than a Wikipedia editor considered it noteworthy. Incidentally, why are the years in bold? It looks like ass! But the WP:V concern is my main one. This could be quite a decent article, but not if it is dominated by cruft, OR and trivia. --John (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • John, can you please point me to the part of policy that requires a citation to show noteworthiness of a fact - as opposed to, say, notability of a article's subject. The closest I can think of is WP:WEIGHT, but I do not think you can claim that any single entry in a short popcult section is outweighing the very solid article that lies above it. The existence of a fact in a popcult section is, as we have discussed a few times over the years, easily verified by the book, film, record or whatever, so WP:V is satisfied. It is within normal editorial purview to decide which of the facts are noteworthy and which are not, and such decisions are reached after discussions between editors on the talk page. So -- again -- if you have specific concerns, let's discuss them here, but since you have not listed the "too many" entries which you believe are "trivial", which is the documented intended use of the "in popular culture" tag, I shall remove that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:V, as you've already mentioned, is the obvious one. WP:IPC is a decent and oft-quoted essay in these discussions. The corollary of the line you are taking is that an article like Second World War would finish with a list of several tens of thousands of films, books, comics, songs and poems which mentioned the war. This would not be a good thing. Trivia cannot be a source for itself, is the usual conclusion these discussions come to. --John (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • John, WP:Slippery slope arguments like that usually overlook the obvious, which in this case is that there are people such as you (and, though you may not believe it, myself as well) who police those articles and make sure that don't get out of hand - that's why we are editors, and get to use our brains and judgment. We don't differ, I think, on believing that really trivial stuff shouldn't be in the article, we simply differ on what is and isn't trivial. That can be solved by discussion between editors, of course, but it's not going to be solved by reference to policy, because policy leaves this in our hands, just as it leaves most content decisions to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • We must beware of and steer clear of deciding between ourselves what is and isn't important. That's why I think the essay I pointed you to is so useful: "However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources. For example, a brief reference in film dialogue may be notable if the subject responds to it in a public fashion—such as a celebrity or official quoted as expressing pleasure or displeasure at the reference. Although some references may be plainly verified by primary sources, this does not demonstrate the significance of the reference. Furthermore, when the primary source in question only presents the reference, interpretation of this may constitute original research where the reference itself is ambiguous.[1] If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment. Quoting a respected expert attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged. Absence of these secondary sources should be seen as a sign of limited significance, not an invitation to draw inference from primary sources." --John (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Essays are nice, but they're not policy. Every editor decides what material he or she adds to an article, based on their own evaluation of what's important. When I read a book on a subject, I can't possibly put everything in the book into our article, or even every important thing, so I do the best I can and add the material which I believe is the most relevant to the subject. Other editors can challenge my choices, based on WP:WEIGHT, or WP:NPOV or WP:FRINGE or whatever criteria they think is appropriate, but we don't require a meta-citation for every fact, attesting that the information is important, we're generally satisfied with a citation which verifies the information -- although some sort of "tie-breaker" may be required with controversial material that editors can't agree on. However, these popcult entries aren't intrinsically "controversial", they're pretty mundane material, and 99% of the time it's easy to determine what's relevant and what falls below the threshold. Sure, there are items that editors can go back and forth about, but that's just part of the editing process, business-as-usual, and not indicative of the need for special rules for popcult items.

    I do think that some editors - not necessarily meaning you here - just don't like popcult material to be in Wikipedia. I think they feel it makes us look less serious, but I firmly disagree. Popular culture is a tremendously important factor in our social universe, and it deserves to be well covered and not shoved aside by being called "trvia" or "cruft". We are an encyclopedia, but we're a different kind of encyclopedia, on line, with practically unlimited space and no restrictions on subject matter. We cover many, many subjects that a traditional paper encyclopedia would never even get close to, and popular culture is just one of them.

    So, can we get down to it? Which entries do you feel are not notable enough to be included, and why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Essays are more than nice; some of them (WP:BRD springs to mind) encompass long-standing consensus and practice and carry as much weight as "policy": remember we are not a bureaucracy and we act for the best interests of the project, rather than being legalistic. In this case, I challenge the extremely mundane and trivial "mentions" like the one at the top of this thread. Who says that "Big Bird" on Knife Man by Andrew Jackson Jihad refers to 'the social laziness that let Kitty Genovese die'? Is this verifiable to the reader? What is the significance of this alleged, unsupported, factoid to the serious story of a murder from fifty years ago? Is there any? Hence my requests for valid third-party references, which you removed. How does the bolding of the dates help the reader? How does the existence of this material as a bulleted list fit with WP:PROSE? I am sorry but it looks exactly like a list of unreferenced trivia to me. --John (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

rape not hilighted?

I am surprised, this case is prominent not only because of the social aspects, but because of the nature of the crime itself. The rape, the perpetrator's sexual condition is significant, and yet her rape only gets a passing mention. I propose it be included in the article head. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sexual status

I noticed that the page is on WP LGBT watchlist, and the article is categorized under LGBT. Since its not mentioned in the article, I did some research, It appears that Kitty was a Lesbian, and there are rumors, that it may have had a part in the inaction of her neighbors. Now, I disagree with the judgement, it is unlikely given the circumstances, that the people involved even knew who was being attacked, and even if they did, the authorities were contacted, so it seems unlikely that there was some concerted effort to let this woman be hurt. So I'll leave the article here, and you guys can search for others. I do believe that if you are going to categorize an article, you need to make it clear why it is in that category. (http://www.bilerico.com/2011/04/chrissy_lee_polis_the_new_kitty_genovese.php) - (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1763547) Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hardly "unlikely", lesbianism among ordinary people wasn't "out" prior to Stonewall, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. However, I've reverted your change of "New York woman" to "lesbian" in the lead (an odd edit to make in your part, given your stated position here), since that is not the appropriate place for that description. Her sexual status did not apparently have anything to do with her attack and killing, and putting it up top like like that appears tome to me to be POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
No issue with your revision, I do think it should be mentioned in the article however. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

fugitive!

I noticed the '!' in the article and traced it back to this recent addition by new user Stephen424 (talk · contribs), which is a copy / paraphrase of a 1968 article which appeared in a few papers. I think it is safe to assume there was a copyright notice on the newspapers, in which case this passage is a copyright violation and needs to be removed/rewritten/put in "quotes", etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I deleted it, as I couldn't find a non-pay version of the article to rewrite from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Gansberg article title

Martin Gansberg's March 27, 1964 article appears to have been titled "37 Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police" rather than "38 Who Saw ..." It seems to have been variously quoted and reproduced since then under both the "37 Who Saw" and "38 Who Saw" titles, apparently to make it consistent with other contemporaneous reports, but it remains that the original article was titled "37 ...". The link we are using to the full text, hosted on a professor's page at SLU, uses the "38" title but apparently does so in error (along with thousands of other references on the Web, though there are more to "37"). Suggestions as to how to resolve? Dwpaul Talk 21:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added a hidden comment explaining this and linking to the article's abstract on the Times' site. Let's see if that resolves it. BMK (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful, but the visible text of the article is still inconsistent. I added the note in the copy to try to explain the variation (should probably be changed to a footnote), but I didn't change the title of the SLU ref since the item at the other end of it has the "38" title. Perhaps we should find another full-text version to link to that uses the original title? Dwpaul Talk 21:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I changed the title in the ref, but your point is that the reference itself uses the wrong title. Yes, I agree, let's find a full text version which has the correct title. BMK (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I found one, an actual image of the newspaper article, marked as having been posted with the permission of the Times. Although a plain-text one might be preferable, I think this fills the bill for the moment. BMK (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Rating this article

I'm surprised that this article has 6 different class ratings from "Start" to "B-class". Having read this article, I'd say it covers the subject adequately: although there are points that need further coverage, none of these holes should force it to be considered a "Start". (Or if someone does think that, she/he should explain why it is only start level.)

But as I read this article, I saw some points that needed addressing before it could be considered more than "B" class:

  • Kitty Genovese, despite being at the center of this story, is little more than a shadow. Was her life stable? (How long was she manager of the bar she worked at? Exactly what did "manager" mean? How long had she been with her lover?) Were her neighbors aware she was a lesbian? (It was not uncommon for single women to be roommates then -- nor now -- & a lesbian couple could live quietly as a couple then without anyone suspecting them of living "an evil life".)
  • Starting in the 1960s, New York City had a reputation for being a dangerous place to live. (As in anyone leaving their apartment to run an errand had to literally run a gauntlet of muggers, rapists, & aggressive panhandlers hiding behind every garbage can & fire hydrant because half the city were gangbangers, thugs, junkies, or just plain creepy.) Yes, there were other factors contributing to this image -- violent crime was a problem in every city in the US during this time -- but it was mostly one of image & perception.
  • A new book is out about this crime: Kevin Cook, Kitty Genovese: The Murder, the Bysatanders, the Crime that Changed America. According to an article I read about Cook's book, New York & many other cities reformed their crime reporting systems, which included 911 systems, & Neighborhood Watch programs.

Just some suggestions. -- llywrch (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that the article is not a biography of Kitty Genevese, it is, as the title says, about the murder of Kitty Genovese - an event, not a person. BMK (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, NYC has a reputation for being dangerous beginning in the mid- to late-60s, but the retrospective view of that danger is generally overblown, and NYC was not as dangerous as, say, Detroit or Washington DC or Baltimore or Philadelphia. The scenario that everyone in NYC was locked inside after dark, shivering in their boots, is greatly exaggerated. It makes for good copy and scarey movies, but it wasn't quite that way.

Buffalo Victims

In my opinion the Buffalo victims from 1968 should not have their names revealed. If they are still alive it's an invasion of privacy. Knowing their names is pointless162.197.44.23 (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anon, your opinion is not good enough to justify that edit. The mention of the Kaluga's in the article is important because it facilitates readers to obtain more information about that crime. For example, I searched using "Kaluga Moseley" and discovered this interesting article on how the Kalugas sued the state for negligence in allowing Moseley to escape and then not to recapture him. http://www.leagle.com/decision/19719537AD2d58_183.xml/KULAGA%20v.%20STATE%20OF%20NEW%20YORK Well-sourced and specific facts are "the point" of Wikipedia.
The relevant policy here is WP:NOTCENSORED. There's no indication in the record that they sought or are now seeking to not have their names revealed. The edit should be reverted. patsw (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think victims of sexual assault should not have their names made public as a rule. I could never support Wikipedia if their policy was to reveal sexual assault victim's names.162.197.44.23 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Does the patronizing tone of the moderators and users ever discourage people from using Wikipedia and does it ever create problems with Wikipedia wanting to be used by everybody?162.197.44.23 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This page is not for general discussion, so your second, rather snide, comment is not relevant here. As for the first, I agree with Patsw. BMK (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Do we really need "Moseley committed another series of crimes when he escaped from custody on March 18, 1968, and then fled to a nearby vacant home, where he held the owners hostage. On March 22, he broke into another home and took a woman and her daughter hostage before surrendering to police" in the lead? I though this article was about the murder itself, not the perpetrator or the victim. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is about everything connected to the murder of Kitty Genovese, including the victim's background, the sociology of the event (which has nothing directly to do with the murder, but which makes the murder historically and culturally significant), and the record of the murderer before and after the actual event. BMK (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, "we really need" it in the lede. Moseley's later crimes have influenced the decision not grant parole. patsw (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories added to the article - they belong on the "Kitty Genovese" redirect

I've twice removed inappropriate categories from this article that belong on the "Kitty Genovese" redirect, only to be reverted each time. A murder is an event, not a person, therefore it cannot ever have a birth, death or any person-specific category assigned to it. Instead we add these to the "Kitty Genovese" redirect, meaning her name shows up when viewing the 1935 births category, instead of text stating "murder of.." . So, to reiterate, only the names of individuals should ever show in such categories, this is standard practice for all articles of this type across the whole of Wikipedia, see WP:RCAT for more information or view similar articles that have achieved "good article" status or better. Categories that should be assigned to articles such as this are ones related to the murder as an event, not to Genovese herself as an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 04:25, 1 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Meaning no disrespect to Ms. Genovese, the singular thing that makes her notable is her murder and its aftermath, rather than her personal accomplishments. This calls into question whether any category that applies to a person rather than an event (e.g., year of birth) should be connected with this article at all, directly or through a redirect. Why should we be concerned with Ms. Genovese's year of birth? This is trivia not related to the reason for nor the facts concerning her notability. Dwpaul Talk 04:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well whatever the case the categories do not belong here under any circumstances and I've edited conservatively for now so we just get this article fixed first. Some of the categories actually are clearly appropriate to use. For example there would be no doubt about having her redirect in the American murder victims category (and therefore also in the 1964 deaths section too).--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Just noting for the record that this is a very bad idea. BMK (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You might explain why you think so. Otherwise, "the record" is of no value except to record that you don't like it. (I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that that is a useless comment.) Dwpaul Talk 05:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point.

Redirects aren't articles, they're simply devices to aid the reader in navigating the encyclopedia. As such, except in rare circumstances, they shouldn't have categories, since they are not informational, but mechanical. It's perfectly clear that putting "Murder of Kitty Genovese" into the category "1935 births" isn't referring to the murder, but to the victim, so there's no need to categorize the redirect. Think also of those articles which have multiple redirects, which of those should get categorized? No, the cleanest and clearest system is to categorize the article, not the redirect. BMK (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so what system do you propose for categorising the perpetrator of notable crimes such as this? The current practice is to add appropriate cats to their redirect, therefore this would allow people to find them via the "American murderers" category.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. I'll think on it, but my immediate response is that if the perptrator did more than one notable crime, he or she would have an article, and the cats would go there. If the perp is notable only for the one crime, then I don't think it's necessary to have cats for them at all, actually, or that may be one of the "rare circumstances" I mentioned above.

BTW, I've reverted the cats on Victoria Snelgrove and Nataline Sarkisyan as well - please don't do any others while discussion is ongoing. BMK (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this whole discussion should probably be on Wikipedia talk:Redirects, not here. BMK (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI we do categorise perpetrators of crimes when they don't have their own bio, and there's often little difference between the importance of the victim and the perpetrator in "murder of" articles. This article surely can't appear in the 1935 births category, moving the cat to the redirect is one option and Dwpaul's solution would certainly also solve the problem, but the present situation doesn't make sense and is far from "perfectly clear". Anyway, here's another scenario to consider, what would you do for a "murder of" article when it was a couple that was the victim? --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I've asked for input on the issue at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing_redirects#Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese_article_and_categorising_redirects --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Outcome of the discussion was that the redirect should be categorised and the cats do not belong on this article (a murder cannot be born in 1935).--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I would say that Category:Deaths by stabbing in the United States should stay here rather than move to Kitty Genovese. That category could be fairly said to apply to the event rather than the person. Dwpaul Talk 19:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Well typically such categories are assigned to the redirect but i won't object if someone wishes to restore it (and remove it from the redirect). My main concern is to rid articles of categories that are obviously wrong and that's something we've achieved here. I have a fair few more to keep me busy elsewhere so I'll be focusing my energies on those.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Done (and added Category:American murderers to redir Winston Moseley while at it). Dwpaul Talk 20:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If "article about the event, not the person" means anything, we need to understand that having an article about the event and one about the person are different things. It's not a technicality where you still have the exact same article but with a new title--an article about an event has different content than an article about a person, not just a different title. Events don't have birth and death dates. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong address

I don't speak English well enough. But it looks like '80-20 Austin St' address is wrong. 80-20 is near Union Turnpike about 400 meters away from the Kew Garden Station and from the crime scene, and it is small single family house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.87.139.52 (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This contemporary newspaper article (currently ref #22) lists the address of the entrance to her apartment building as 82-70 Austin Street (second page) and the location of the final attack at 82-62 Austin Street (third page). Dwpaul Talk 19:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This ref (Ref #1) also lists 82-70 Austin Street as her home address. Dwpaul Talk 19:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 Done I have made the correction. Dwpaul Talk 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No reason to display metadata

There is no reason to display metadata for an image, if someone is interested they can click on the image. We do not have to tell people what scrapbook it was found in, or what website they found it at. That is for the image page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, we often point out the source of a photo, especially if it looks (as this one does) like it might be a mug shot (which it is not). What do other editors think?
BTW, RAN, per WP:BRD the article stays in the status quo ante while discussion is going on, so until there is a consensus among the editors discussing it here, please do not revert again. BMK (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Essays are fun to read but are not policy. We have over 1,000,000 images displayed and they do not display the metadata. Every photo was taken from a particular source or by a particular photographer, but we usually do not display the source or photographer. The only ones I have seen are when the image is iconic or the image was by a famous photographer, and even then it is debatable to display that information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the self revert of your knee-jerk reversion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Provide a policy to support your removal and I'll agree with your edit. Absent a policy, it's your opinion alone, which to me is valueless - a copyright violating defrocked admin with more editing restrictions logged against him than anyone else I'm aware of on Wikipedia. Your opinion is, to me, worthless. I will agree to follow the consensus of other editors on this page. BMK (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The "metadata" about the image is included in the details of the image itself; There is no reason for it to be included here. "Finagle upsilon, albacore"? Seriously? And "Your opinion is, to me, worthless" was intended as an improvement over telling another editor "fuck you"? BMK, it seems well past time to walk away from this article. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Alan: I would think that your time and energy would be better spent making sure that you do not violate your IBan with Magnolia677,rather than lashing out at editors who have suggested that you be sanctioned for your previous egregious violations of it -- but, after all, it's your time to spend as you wish. Perhaps you enjoy blogging, for instance? BMK (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have reverted to the caption without the metadata. You are citing an essay as your justification for restoring it, instead of citing a Wikipedia guideline. You cited your mug-shot rule: "we often point out the source of a photo, especially if it looks (as this one does) like it might be a mug shot", but you never gave examples of your mug-shot rule applied in Wikipedia to show that it is "often" used. You give the appearance that you are creating drama, for the joy of the drama. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Partner?

Part of the article reads "She shared her Kew Gardens apartment at 82-70 Austin Street with her partner Mary Ann Zielonko." Eh? Was she a lesbian? That's the first I've heard of that, though I'm hardly an expert on the subject. There's no LGBT-related tags on here. Anyone know if this is accurate?Evil bacteria (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, she apparently was a lesbian. While I am likewise no expert on either the subject or the victim, I suspect that it is not elaborated upon in this article because it is an article about her murder, not her, per se -- and as such is irrelevant, because there is no evidence that it had anything to do with her murder. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that she was a lesbian has no bearing on her murder, which is the reason she's a public figure and has a Wikipedia page in the first place. Her murderer, Winston Mosely, was Black but that's not mentioned for the same reason. It has no bearing on the fact that he was a murderer, a rapist, and a general scum bag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8400:F742:5909:37FF:A53F:6F5A (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Pictures this could have.

In addition to pics of Genovese and her killer, there is space in this article for pictures of the house she lived in (now Austin's Ale House) and perhaps the Kew Gardens LIRR station parking lot. If anyone's in the area, think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Kitty Genovese. 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, 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 10:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Split proposed

No consensus to do this at this time. --John (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To me, this article seems bloated with a lot of information about Genovese 's killer Mosley which has no bearing on the murder itself nor the victim (whose life is interesting and should get more detail, I think): for instance, later crimes, what he did in prison, how long he has been in prison, etc. It seems out of scope for this article; I suggest a new page on Moseley per WP:SPLIT. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Opposed Winston Moseley is only known to the world as the murderer of Kitty Genovese. His later crimes are mentioned in the article as a means to explain why he has not been given parole or a reduction in sentence in spite of reaching the age of 80. It is not bloat and it is in scope. patsw (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasoning expressed by Patsw. Also, Moseley's notability derives exclusively from this event, so WP:BLP1E would preclude the creation of a separate article concerning him. General Ization Talk 18:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. His only notability is bundled with the murder case, so there's no need for a separate article on him. --Xanzzibar (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pro He was found guilty of two other murders and confessed to other crimes as well. Additionally, I don't find it right on a gut level that she should be sharing an article with her rapist and murderer. That's more emotional than rational though. Oztafankolibril (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Per recent news, WP:BLP is no longer an issue here, and he is notable for his escape from prison as well as being one of New York's longest serving inmates. Deep down, I don't much like it, but Wikipedia is not a hagiography; we must treat notable sinners and notable saints by the same standards. -- Kendrick7talk 02:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Every state in the USA has got a handful of "longest serving inmates" at any given time, and Wiki doesn't have articles on most of them, although their names might warrant a mention in some article dealing with whatever crime put them in prison, or on length of prison terms or inability to get parole generally. There have also been many inmates who escaped and committed some other crimes before being rounded up again; Wiki doesn't have articles on all of them either because WP:NOTNEWS. He is only notable for this Genovese case and is properly discussed within the article on this case. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support There is enough text in this article for him that would suffice under its own weight, and I would agree with Ozta in that it is odd to have so much on the murder article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Moseley's life unfortunately is intertwined with Genovese. The information on his life is not so overwhelming or interesting that it should require a separate page. ––[User talk: chitown_mimi]5 April 2016
  • Oppose per WP:BLP1E. General Ization Talk 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC) (Already !voted above)
  • Mild oppose Moseley would not warrant a mention if it were not for the after effects of the murder of Genovese, regardless of his escape from prison and subsequent violent acts. --regentspark (comment) 15:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - He is a serial killer (with a few other murders under his belt). Due to the Genovese case, these other murders are never discussed or detailed. They are forgotten and/or overshadowed by the Genovese case. I think there's plenty to fill an article for Moseley. We have articles for much less, including "one time" murderers. There is plenty to create an article for this serial killer. It's just never been undertaken, because everyone gets side-tracked by the Genovese matter. He is notable in his own right. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The fact that his other murders are "never discussed or detailed" because of Genovese just supports the contention that several people have made that his notability is coming from the Genovese case alone and thus he's a WP:BIO1E who doesn't meet GNG for a separate article. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Your comment reflects that you do not understand WP:BIO1E or that you misinterpret it. There are many, many reliable sources about this guy over the course of the past 40-50 years. They cover his umpteen parole denials, his escape from prison, his other crimes, his death, his role in the psychological phenomenon, and so forth. According to you, we should not have an article about Sirhan Sirhan, about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, about Lee Harvey Oswald? Come on. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that a disagreement over WP:BIO1E in a particular case where there is clearly not a consensus based on the responses reflects some big lack of understanding on my part, but let's set that aside. You bring up the murder of RFK, murder of JFK, and Columbine case. Under WP:BIO1E, "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles". The assassinations of major political figures like the Kennedys are clearly "of sufficient importance". Columbine, a dramatic mass murder that received ongoing media coverage even as it was happening and had two unusual perps (high school students with no significant past criminal behavior who suddenly committed a major mass murder out of the blue) was also clearly "of sufficient importance". The Genovese killing by contrast is probably not "of sufficient importance" and is hardly on the level of Kennedy assassinations or Columbine. It was a garden variety murder by a garden variety criminal. Neither the crime nor the perpetrator nor the victim were important or unusual in any way. Kitty wasn't a major political figure, and her killing wasn't a dramatic mass murder that made live TV, nor was Moseley a Harris or Klebold whom you wouldn't expect to commit a murder, and it was one murder of many in NYC, not an attempted mass slaughter rampage. It did not get significant news or other source coverage until well after the fact and then only because the NY police official fed the story to the NYT editor, leading to a significantly erroneous/misleading news story that went down in history because of the witnesses' alleged behavior, not the perp's. If Kitty's case was on the level of RFK, JFK or Columbine, then the witnesses whose alleged behavior gave rise to the story would likely be just as notable or even more notable than the perp. TheBlinkster (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Has notability on his own due to the commitment of numerous crimes including escape following imprisonment and was denied parole numerous times. While I'm not a fan of perpetrators overshadowing victims, an article on this perpetrator/criminal seems appropriate. What's more, the amount of content on the guy in this article is WP:UNDUE. Yes, split the article and give a mention about the perpetrator in this article with a link to the article on the perp. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that the amount of info on him in this Genovese murder article is WP:UNDUE. However, the fact that a lot of info on him was included again does not mean he meets GNG for his own separate article. I have worked on various Wikipedia articles about murder cases titled "Murder of _____" and in the vast majority of those articles, the perp has committed other crimes before or after the notable crime and/or there is enough detail on his or her life out there published in newspapers or books that one could fill a decent-sized Wiki article on them — BUT the amount of information available on the person is not the standard by which we determine whether they merit their own article. I would just cut down the info presented on the guy in this article and leave it at that, because he is only notable for Genovese. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The reason this case achieved infamy has nothing to do with whom the murderer was so that is why independent of the case the subject in question does t deserve its own page Masterknighted (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
What? That's not the question being discussed here. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The only thing the murderer is notable for is the Kitty Genovese murder. His other crimes etc. have only received attention due to his involvement in the Genovese case. He is not a notable serial killer like Bundy, the Grim Sleeper, Anthony Sowell etc. and the fact that he is (in some editor's opinion) "interesting" does not make him independently notable enough for his own article. There are plenty of "interesting" perpetrators, including possible serial killers and people who have committed other crimes either before or after the crime for which they are known, on Wikipedia who are only discussed in the context of an article on a high-profile crime from whence their notability stems. This guy is a classic case of WP:BIO1E and does not warrant his own article. TheBlinkster (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Once again, you either misunderstand or misinterpret WP:BIO1E (or both). The policy that you cite specifically states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." What is your rebuttal to this? Is it your claim that: (A) the murder of Genovese is not highly significant? (Why would we have a Wikipedia article about it, if that's the case?) Or is it your claim that: (B) Moseley's role in the murder was not a large role? Or is it your claim that both (A) and (B) are true? I'd be interested to hear your position. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Please see my response above. Regarding (A), Genovese's murder is notable but hardly "of sufficient importance" that each person involved gets their own article and the perp is not the major notability driver for the Genovese murder article.You equate the Genovese murder to the Kennedy assassinations and Columbine. For the reasons stated above I think Genovese's murder is notable enough for its own article but hardly rises to the level of importance to put it with Kennedys or Columbine and put Moseley on the level of Lee Harvey Oswald or Eric Harris. Wikipedia has many many articles about notable crimes where the perpetrator is known solely for his or her role in the crime and is properly discussed there without meriting a separate article, and this is one of those articles. Regarding (B), Moseley is not the reason for the notability of the case. The case is not notable because Moseley was independently notable, or killed in an unusual way, or even because the victim was independently notable (so she dos not get her own article either). The witnesses and the NYT story about their behavior are the only reasons this case is notable. I think this is sufficient explanation as I am by now repeating myself and the fundamental difference here is that you see this case up on a level with JFK assassination and Moseley as the equivalent of Lee Harvey Oswald - I don't. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You went on and on, but didn't answer the question. I asked if your position was "A", "B", or "C" in rebuttal to the exact Wikipedia policy that you cited? The best that I can parse out of your answer was "A", that the Genovese case is not significant. If that's your position, I will let that speak for itself. Most people on Wikipedia (and in the world) would deem it significant. Something does not have to be on the "order" of a JFK assassination to be significant. There are probably only a handful of events that are "unusually" significant (for example, the JFK assassination; 9/11; Pearl Harbor, stuff like that). Columbine was a school shooting; there have been many before and many since. So, what? Yes, it's significant. Not on the order of a JFK assassination. Same with Genovese. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe I answered the question quite clearly, but I will say one more time that while a murder case may well be significantly notable enough to get its own Wiki article (as this one clearly is), the notability guideline that I have cited many times above suggests that in a case of UNUSUAL notability — which might be something like a political assassination (Kennedys) or an event of other great national significance (Rodney King) – even minor participants might be notable enough for their own articles. I see Moseley here as a fairly minor participant because his actions did not give rise to the notability of the case, as someone else has explained below - and the same is true of the victim. This case became notable for reasons completely unrelated to the victim or the perp. I think I have expressed myself clearly enough on this point so I am going to leave it at that from my end. As a side note, I too find your comments such as "you went on and on" a bit uncivil and akin to badgering, which is not what I come on here for. TheBlinkster (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You have avoided the entire thrust of my argument. You are "adding in" requirements to WP:BIO1E that are not in the policy. As I detailed below. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When WP:BIO1E states "If the event is highly significant..." it means a significance well beyond the notability needed to have a Wikipedia article. Otherwise BIO1E would have little application. And I would argue that the perpetrator's role was not so large; it was the alleged poor behavior of the witness as reported by the NYT that gave this murder its significance, not the murderer.--agr (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
So, just to clarify. The event is "Murder of Kitty Genovese". And the role of the murderer in said murder is not a large role. Do I understand your position correctly? Wow. You can't make this stuff up. Just wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Joseph, I personally think you're verging on incivility (and disruption) by effectively attacking every editor who contributes comments and/or a !vote to this discussion with which you don't agree. Arnold clearly expressed himself, and the answer to your not-so-sincere question above is already contained in his comment. I really think you need to dial it back and listen to what other editors are saying, whether or not you agree with it. General Ization Talk 23:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Lose the thin skin. They are legitimate questions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It isn't a question of thin skin. It's a question of respect for other editors and their opinions, and it's one of the core principles here. I urge you again to tone it down. General Ization Talk 01:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Which of my questions is illegitimate? Also, aren't you supposed to WP:AGF? Is that not also a core principle here? I think it's uncivil of you to accuse me of bad behavior, when you should be assuming good faith. Where's your respect for my opinions? So, touche. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
AGF (which read carefully, please) isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card to excuse your condescending attitude toward other editors, which is plainly evident without making any assumptions at all. I have plenty of respect for your opinions; I have none at this point for your attitude (as you plainly express it). Now please focus on improving the article while remaining civil to other editors who are engaged in the same process. General Ization Talk 03:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Since you claim to have genuinely not understood Arnold's comments, allow me to AGF and tell you how I interpret them (and Arnold can let us know if I am right): Arnold (and others here) did not claim that Moseley's role in the murder was small. Rather he was saying that Moseley's role in making the murder notable was small. Obviously Moseley initiated the murder. However, had it not been for the alleged (lack of) reaction of Genovese's neighbors, especially the ones who acknowledged having heard her screams, and the extensive (if not completely objective or accurate) newspaper coverage that occurred, this would have been just another case of a vicious murder, of brief and primarily local interest, of someone largely unknown except to friends and family, and it would not have an article here at all. (And presumably neither would Moseley.) In other words, it was not so much Moseley's act that became notable, but the phenomenon of indifference as it was alleged by the Times which provoked a national conversation. General Ization Talk 12:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering Mr. Spadaro's question. It's a good explanation of my position. I would just add that there is another person with a key role in this story who does not have a separate article and that is the victim, Ms. Genovese.--agr (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. But it is my opinion that you are conflating issues. WP:BIO1E states: "If (A:) the event is highly significant, and (B:) the individual's role within it is a large one, then (C:) a separate article is generally appropriate." My analysis is as follows. The event is the murder of Genovese. The "event" is not the bystander effect, etc. This article is entitled "Murder of Genovese". It is not entitled "bystander effect" or the like. So, again, in my opinion, per WP:BIO1E: (A) The event is highly significant? Yes. It's significant in many respects, not the least of which is the fact that we have a Wikipedia article about it. (B) The individual's role within "it" (the event) is a large one? Yes, Moseley's role within the event (the murder) is a large role. Therefore, (C) a separate article is appropriate. I believe that you both are conflating various issues. The event is the murder of the woman. That is the title of the article. That is the subject of the article. The "event" is not some analysis of bystander effect, etc. That is where I believe you both are conflating issues inappropriately and inaccurately. So, you and I are defining "event" differently. The question presented in WP:BIO1E is -- generically -- "Is the individual's role within the event a large role?" Therefore, the question presented in WP:BIO1E is -- specifically -- "Is Moseley's role within the murder of Genovese a large role?" That is what WP:BIO1E is asking us to consider and analyze. That is the question. You have re-written the question to be: "Is Moseley's role in making the murder notable a large or small role?" That's a totally different question. And that is not the question that WP:BIO1E is asking us to consider, analyze, and answer. So, again, you are conflating two very different issues/questions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's another example: Rose Mary Woods. She is Nixon's secretary involved in the Watergate scandal. She (clearly) has her own article. The event was Watergate. Did she play a big role? Yes. Did her role make Watergate notable? No. Watergate was notable. She didn't make it notable. She just had a big role in a notable event. Hence, she has an article. According to your theory (interpretation), the role Woods played had to have "made" Watergate notable. That's just plain silly. Woods did not "make" Watergate notable. It was/is notable as an event. And she played a big role in that notable event. Just because you play a big role in a notable event does not mean that you make that event notable. (Woods is a good example.) So, you are (arbitrarily) adding higher and more stringent criteria into the policy of WP:BIO1E. WP:BIO1E is asking: "When we have a significant event, is the individual's role within that significant event a large role?" Contra: WP:BIO1E is not asking: "When we have a significant event, is the individual's role within that significant event a large role in actually making the event become significant/notable?" You are adding additional criteria that are not there. If the WP:BIO1E policy wanted to add in that extra criteria, it would be stated within the policy. So, back to Woods. Why does she have an article? Is it your claim that she made Watergate a notable event? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I think TheBlinkster has addressed this above; the Watergate scandal was such a politically significant and broad event, having national and long-lasting implications, that it appropriately spawned an entire series of articles, including articles on relatively minor contributors to the entire event/topic of which the biographical article on Rose Mary Woods was one. It is inappropriate to compare this event to the Watergate scandal in terms of its notability, or in terms of how articles on the contributors to the event should be justified. They are apples and oranges. General Ization Talk 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, as the long-serving personal secretary to the President of the United States, Rose Mary Woods would have met notability requirements even had the Watergate scandal not occurred (if there had been other reasons for there to be published sources that mentioned her). Genovese was decidedly non-notable (one might even say dis-notable); that's part of the narrative of this case. And neither was Moseley independently notable outside of his role in her murder. General Ization Talk 20:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
A last point (at this time): Beware the circular reasoning expressed as: "The event is highly significant? Yes. It's significant in many respects, not the least of which is the fact that we have a Wikipedia article about it." The existence of a Wikipedia article never makes an event (or person, place, etc.) significant. If its primary significance (or claim of significance) is that we have an article about it, it is time for the article to be deleted. This case would be, in the present day, entirely insignificant (both in the national consciousness and in terms of the need for an article here) were it not for the psycho-social phenomenon which was alleged by the Times. That phenomenon is indeed the subject of this article (but it isn't necessary to contort the article's title to reflect it – "The murder of Kitty Genovese" is indeed often how the phenomenon is commonly introduced when it is discussed). General Ization Talk 21:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
You have avoided the entire thrust of my argument. You are "adding in" requirements to WP:BIO1E that are not in the policy. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Direct me to other secretaries of Presidents who have Wikipedia articles. Your claim is the a secretary to a President is a notable Wikipedia topic. Are there others here, besides Woods? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A 70-year-old woman?

the NYTimes article states "A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled the dying victim in her arms until they arrived." but the documentary "The Witness" interviewed Sophia Farrar who claims to be the woman who held kitty as she was dying, and Sophia Farrar was not 70 at the time.

is the new york times that bad that it screwed up their retraction article with another gross and obvious error?

the washington post seems to have gotten it right: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2016/07/01/the-witness-captures-the-lingering-damage-from-kitty-genoveses-murder/

Prefetch (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Witness

(I don't know how to edit this I am new to all this but I must speak up: According to the movie 'The Witness' the number 38 was CLEARLY MADE UP by Abe Rosenthal, and everyone else (i.e. other journalists etc.) were too cowardly to call him out. WHY THE HELL IS THIS NOT MENTIONED ON THE DAMN PAGE? THIS JERK RUINED THAT FAMILYS LIFE IN THE NAME OF NEWSPAPER SALES, AND HE GETS AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE WE'RE ALL SCARED OF HIM EVEN THOUGH HE'S DEAD?

HAVE WE LEARNT NOTHING?

I would do it myself but my god this whole internet thing is just too bloody confusing)

- An Old Man Who Values Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.106.171 (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2017‎ (UTC)

Please read WP:reliable sources, and you'll learn that we base out articles on information gleaned from reliable sources. The Witness is a non-fiction movie, but it was written by William Genovese, the brother of Kitty Genovese, who can hardly be said to be unbiased -- that makes its value as a source for the article very poor. It would be possible to add something such as "William Genovese, the brother of Kitty Genovese, wrote the screenplay for The Witness, about his sister's murder, and he believes that xxxxx...", but it would be inappropriate to use it as a source for supposed facts about the murder. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Economy of terms

In one of the first few paragraphs of this wikipedia article for genovese, the NYTimes first two published writings on the murder are referred to as an article and report. In the next paragraph, the NYtimes labels one of those two writings, "the second story" as flawed. But there is no story mentioned in that paragraph--only an article and a report. In this case, people in articles were telling their story to a newspaper, and then the newspaper calls the story flawed. But does that mean the person's story told in the article or the article itself? I know who the NYTimes was calling flawed (their article) but it took me 60 extra seconds to figure that out, and that's not expediting this article's information very quickly.Spintendo (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

"Story", "article" and "report" are synonymous in this context. Using the same noun over and over agin make for boring and monotonous writing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Source

Leaving this source here as it might be useful, I don't have access (or time), to put it in the article myself. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm slammed myself, but hopefully someone will be able to use it before my time frees up. Post here again in a week or so as a reminder, so it pops up on people's watchlists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Murder of Kitty Genovese. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Reference style

Catsmeat, regarding this, why did you change the reference style? See WP:CITEVAR. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference 66: Age of Autism is an incredibly problematic source

Reference 66 of this article links to Age of Autism (AoA). They are an incredibly problematic anti-vaccine interest group that promotes absurd conspiracies and pushes the myth that vaccines cause autism.

A link from cdc.gov talking about the Bring in the Bystanders program can be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevention.html

A link from the National Institute of Justice about the program can be found here: https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=159

After briefly looking over both pages, I can't readily find a citation to support the investment of $1,000,000. But both are reputable sites that mention the program and I really think that this reference should be amended to remove anything related whatsoever to AoA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanoplex (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A TV set in the trunk of his car?

Quote: "Winston Moseley was arrested for suspected robbery in Ozone Park, Queens, after a television set was discovered in the trunk of his car"

So, a whole TV set... chairs, tables, camera equipment, fake walls, etc... That's a bloody big car boot. I'm assuming something went awry here. 79.75.214.166 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

In North America, the terms 'TV set' and 'television set' mean 'television' (in this case, the tube within its assembly). Mindmatrix 21:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese/Archive_1&oldid=1136369854"