Talk:Kitty Genovese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] 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)


[edit] Naming convention

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Genovese case in popular culture

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)

[edit] 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.````

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 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 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)


[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/t/Talk%7EKitty_Genovese_dd4d.html"