Talk:Murder of Imette St. Guillen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for crime-related articles.

Contents

[edit] I don't know how

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

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

[edit] Lawsuit

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

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

[edit] Hispanic

Can anyone explain why in all those news reports not once was it mentioned that Imette St. Guillen was Hispanic?

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

[edit] Spanish references

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

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

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

[edit] Nightlife legislation

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

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

[edit] GET A LIFE

Immortal Godezz and MurderWatcher1 you seriously need to move on, this is border line disturbing. No normal person gives a shit this much about someone they never met and when you took it beyond the facts of the death and dove into this girl's personal life it became "Stalker Status". Another thing, I seriously doubt NYC's nightlife was effected at all, people die everyday. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.139.174 (talk) 14:44, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say the fact that you've even noticed fills me with warm fuzzy stalker-ish feelings. The fact that you've noticed my editing habits is heart warming. Side-note: if you're going to attempt to insult me at least spell my handle right. --ImmortalGoddezz 15:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The only person or persons who would say anything using foul language like this are those connected to The Falls bar. Everyone else I had met cared for the girl and spoke positively of her. Otherwise, why are you so interested in 'messing' and maliciously changing this page, especially since the trial is coming up? Hmmm! As for anyone doubting New York City's nightlife was 'effected' (proper grammar usage is 'affected'), we have more action by police, the SLA seems to be shaping up and people are concerned with NYC Nightlife, as can be read in this web-reference. As for your comment "people die everyday", I can only assume that you have no soul whatsoever. That makes you 'JDM' in my book. Don't know what that means? Read my updated User Page.--MurderWatcher1 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You think I didn't see that deleted garbage you put in and then deleted? I'm watching everything!--MurderWatcher1 21:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Dorrian-Related News

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

New York Post, Saturday, September 8, 2007 Website: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09082007/news/regionalnews/barkeep_slapped_on_the_hand.htm BARKEEP SLAPPED ON THE 'HAND' By LAURA ITALIANO September 8, 2007 -- Barkeep James Dorrian got a no-jail break and a scolding at his sentencing yesterday for literally throwing a complaining customer out of his family's flagship Upper East Side bar. "You'd better remember the day you made your mother cry," Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Neil Ross told Dorrian as his mom, dad, sister and uncle sobbed, apparently relieved he wouldn't be carted off to jail. Dorrian, 31, was crying himself. He'd faced up to a year behind bars for his misdemeanor May 2006 attack on a drunken film editor at Dorrian's Red Hand on Second Avenue. Instead, he got three years of probation, 10 days of community service and anger-management counseling.

[edit] The Song: "Pioneer to the Falls

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

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

[edit] Mummy Maniac

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

[edit] Wise Advice to other young women

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

"The Evening Sun" Chenango County's Hometown Daily

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

Knock Out Drops

By: Shelly Reuben, Columnist

Published: December 20th, 2007


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

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

The Villager

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

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

Scoopy's Notebook

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

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

[edit] See also section

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

[edit] Notes section

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

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

[2]

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

[edit] Requested move

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

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

Imette St. GuillenMurder of Imette St. Guillen — Notability is the event —Artichoke2020 (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
In cases where the victim or the perpetrator of a crime does not meet the criteria for an individual article, but there exists sourced coverage of the crime itself sufficient to meet notability standards, the material should generally be presented in an article documenting the crime event and not the people involved. For example, a high profile crime would have an article entitled "Murder of Joe Bloggs", "Disappearance of Jane Doe", etc.


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


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