This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

How could suspect leave hostel at 5.34 am on December 4 if he checked out of the hostel on December 3 as stated in the article? 147.219.169.203 (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont know why this was hidden. Sounds like a perfectly legitimate error in the article--Trade (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we:

• Option 1: Use Klippenstein without an additional reliable source
• Option 2: Use Klippenstein with an additional reliable source
• Option 3: Do not use Klippenstein

Personisinsterest (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - What context are we talking about here? Toa Nidhiki05 00:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If and how we should use Klippenstein as a source. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Klippenstein himself is not a source. Various things that he's written are sources. Whether a source is reliable depends on the content that is sourced to it (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). What is the article content in question, and which of Klippenstein's articles is it sourced to? Unless you clarify, this is a Bad RfC and should be withdrawn. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (bot-summoned) This request does not contain coherent information that can be commented upon. Please withdraw and rewrite. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw damn I can’t get it right with RfC’s, can I? Personisinsterest (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Personisinsterest: See WP:RFCEND. I have removed the {{rfc}} tag for you. If you wish to start another RfC, please see WP:RFCST, and in particular, ensure that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You could zero in specifically on the Klippenstein content sourced to Democracy Now!, whose RS status is undetermined, and Mediaite, which is "marginally reliable and should be avoided when better sources are available." Regardless of the context, any Rfc discussion will naturally focus on Klippenstein's own reliability, and what quality of sourcing would be required to back up his self-published work (if it's deemed that he isn't RS by himself). Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early police reports stated that bullet casings found at the crime scene had "deny," "defend" and "depose" written on them. However, it later emerged this was a mistake and that "defend" was actually "delay." Despite the correction, a lot of people are still using "deny, defend, depose." Would it be a good idea to add some sort of clarification?

I actually added an explanation of the discrepancy a while ago, but another editor removed it due to "recentism" concerns. However, my understanding is WP:RECENTISM is an essay and not an actual policy or guideline.

As a reader, I would definitely be confused as to why a lot of people are saying "deny, defend, depose" even though the article says it's "delay, deny, depose." Ixfd64 (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to add some sort of clarification? Yes, I think so. Maybe a footnote at the end of the sentence? Some1 (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong to remove this citing WP:RECENTISM. People are still coming across sourcing with the incorrect original words, so I have put this back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was wrong of you you think that this is not WP:RECENTISM. Here the information is absolutely clear after the correction. An encyclopedia is not a chronicle of breaking news such that every error in early reporting and subsequent correction needs to be accounted for. "Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies". Wikipedia is not a catalogue of those inaccuracies. This article is not a 'Timeline of who said what since day 1'. That is anti-encyclopedic.

Including that piece of superseded information is adding words that impart no information to the reader. The note in the lead is a waste of time for the reader at best. Potentially worse: Attempting to directly intercept and contradict readers' mistaken preconceptions formed through their exposure to news media is very problematic and generally not healthy. When you tell someone who believe X that "the original information was X but it changed to Y", for a good percentage of the people the reaction is going to be: "Ha, can't fool me, I know what I saw and it said X, and now they're just trying to change that because it fits their narrative". We need to be an authoritative encyclopedia by including high quality information that is verifiable with reliable sources. Readers who are uncertain about the factual statements made in our articles have to check the sources. When the reader does not find any recognition of their erroneous preconception, checks the references and sees that the statement in our article is fully supported, that's when we've done our job. —Alalch E. 02:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have removed this again, saying that it is "irrelevant, deprecated information". No it isn't, see the comments above, you risk going against consensus here. There is an old saying that a lie has gone round the world before the truth has got its boots on. Plenty of people have come across the incorrect information and are still coming across it in various sources, so a clarification is needed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a reply to me? I am not sure because it is not indented as one, and you do not appear to be responding to what I wrote on this talk page. —Alalch E. 08:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously decided to remove this, so I am not arguing. Let's see if other editors have an opinion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page currently includes the whole of Mangione's alleged letter. Assuming it was in fact written by him, it would be automatically under copyright under U.S. law, as there is no indication he released it under a free license. If it's not real, then it's still under copyright by Klippenstein.

Wikisource had a discussion about this at Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2024#Luigi Mangione Manifesto, which had unambiguous agreement amongst editors that this is most likely a copyright violation.

Therefore, we probably should not host a copyrightable letter, per Wikipedia:Copyrights. FPTI (talk) 09:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slow edit war with IPs repeatedly adding this. As I said in this edit summary, infobox person is really only for biographical articles where it is the lead infobox. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]