Talk: Kitty Genovese

From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.

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)