Talk:Richard Kuklinski

Married Twice

According to the article "Married to the Iceman" (listed as a source), Richard Kuklinski was married with two children when he met Barbara Pedrici, who became his second wife. The first wife is not mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

DNR status issue

This is in regard to DNR status in the death section: I believe that this article may need some adjustment based on new jersey laws both now and at the time. Regardless of incarceration, there is no evidence that Richard Kuklinski was not in charge of his POA (Power of Attorney) in regards to his health care. While it is possible, it is also highly unlikely that his wife would have been in the situation to appoint a DNR status on Richard Kuklinski. Richard himself stated he clearly wanted to be resuscitated. At the time of his death he was of sound mind, therefore would have retained his POA unless he signed it over. In this case the statement can be what is stated by his wife Barbra Kuklinski. Short of having proof that she did in fact have POA signed over to her it is highly unlikely this did in fact happen like this.

Furthermore if she did not have the POA for Richard Kuklinski this implicates the doctor has broken the Hippocratic Oath. Legally if Richard Kuklinski was in fact his own POA and the doctor did not attempt to resuscitate him at the instruction of his wife, this in fact implicates a crime. While it makes for an interesting end for a movie, it is highly unlikely and does not belong as a factual statement unless it can be supported by a legal document.

The citation for this POA issue of his death is based on webpage written on the day of the release of the film "The Iceman" which without further supporting arguments stands little ground as factual information. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9959985/Married-to-The-Iceman.html

http://www.njha.com/media/33214/DNRGuidelines.pdf (2003)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleisslow (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Many of the recent edits on this page is making it seem like Richard Kuklinski was lying about his experiences, and it seems very suspicious. There isn't anything to suggest that the biography by Carlo isn't a reliable source. Also, another biography published after Carlo's came to the same conclusions. Care to explain them in detail? SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I ask again, User:Avaya1 could you explain why Carlo's books are not RS?SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll open an RFC later... But we should try to get more editors involved. The current state of the article is reprinting claims which are false or go against conventional histories. It relies on Philip Carlo, who himself retracted almost all the claims in the book. A lot of Kuklinski's claims (e.g. on Roy Demeo) are pure WP:FRINGE, and have been retracted by the original source which publicized them. It's extremely misleading to readers. Also I don't understand why you were removing Jerry Cepeci's quote. Avaya1 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

All you have to do is provide the source to Carlo retracting the claims in his book, which you still haven't provided. An RfC wont mean anything unless you do that. And i will say this again, Capeci's source is an opinion piece, meaning not biographical. Also saying that Kuklinski's stories are "demented ramblings" is a violation of NPOV, and also he never backs the claims up. Bruno also came to similar conclusions as Carlo.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Capeci is the most notable expert quoted in this article, and you are removing his statements without any reason. The fact Wikipedia is restating retracted (by Carlo), unreliable, fringe claims (as per WP:FRINGE), requires a counter-balance, even if we consider them notable for inclusion.Avaya1 (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Carlo's main source for the book is Kuklinski himself and it doesn't seem he treated his claims with much skepticism. Mob guys are well known to spin and make themselves look better in their own writings and memoirs but Kuklinski took it to another level. Kuklinski has only been confirmed to be a minor mob associate and was convicted of a few murders. No evidence of him being a master mob assassin has been found. Frankly, a lot of his claims are pretty ridiculous. He's been jokingly referred to as the "Forest Gump of mob hits" since he claims to have been at all the major ones.

The theory that Kuklinski just made it all up for attention and fame and some writer ran with it in 2006 isn't that implausible. Thus basing most of the article on Kuklinski's own words is not appropriate and the article should be rebuilt without it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Kuklinski was a killer, but there's also no doubt that he was, for all intents and purposes, completely full of shit. His well-known penchant for lying should certainly be taken into consideration, and details of his life definitely merit consideration on a case-by-case basis. The word "claim" is on the "words to avoid" list, and is almost always inappropriate, but because of Kuklinski's documented willingness to be counterfactual on a regular basis, this is one of the rare cases where its use is entirely appropriate. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And half the article is sourced to books that are very uncritical of Kuklinski's stories. I wouldn't consider these books reliable. One mistake I've found is that he spells Robert Prongay's name wrong. There was an actual Robert Prongay whose crimes and murder were reported on in New Jersey Newspapers. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Much of Kuklinski's narratives are self-serving, and a lot of material after the HBO series treat his story without any skepticism. This "Iceman Mythos" he created shouldn't be repeated on Wikipedia without any skepticism. I went through the article to trim anything that was sourced only to Kuklinski's own words. If a third party didn't bother critiquing that part of his story, then it isn't worth mentioning. The original newspaper reporting on his arrest and trials are the most accurate and should be used. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Strange demand that an article about Kuklinski should not contain anything that was said by the man himself, unless someone else "critiqued" it. Who gets to decide what is worth mentioning?

The Bruno biography did not just uncritically repeat whatever Kuklinski told him, despite the suggestion above. Bruno has made it clear in interviews (and a subsequent book) that he didn't believe a lot of Kuklinski's stories and left out the ones he couldn't verify, like him killing Hoffa and Castellano.

And why is Jerry Capeci no longer considered a reliable source? Sittingonacornflake (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Third party reliable sources get to decide what is worth mentioning and should be given WP:WEIGHT. Many third party sources reported Kuklinski's claim of killing the police officer for instance, so that section should be given a lot of weight. The biographers of Kuklinski only seem to balk at Kuklinski's most outrageous claims, but treats most of his stories with little skepticism and do believe he was a contract killer.

I don't know who Jerry Capeci or the NY Sun is. It looks very bloggy, and his articles look heavily opinionated opinion pieces than proper articles. Looking at the Wikipedia page doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence that this is anything but a small time online only publication with an ideological bent. Not the sort of thing articles should be based on. It's just a matter of source quality. This is why I added a lot more sources from established neutral newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune.

And, I did add a quote by New Jersey state Attorney General W. Cary Edwards, and a quote by Kuklinski to the article, both sourced to the Associated Press. I'm not against adding quotes, just that they should be sourced to proper third parties and should be given proper balance. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The AP gets things wrong too. In Kuklinski's obituary, they described him as a "notorious Mafia hitman". Shall we include that in the article because it's "third party and reliable"?

Who decides what is a "third party reliable source"? You said in an edit summary that there is "No third party evidence that he ever met Robert Prongay", yet you removed a quote from a cop in the New Jersey Record, which stated Kuklinski was the prime suspect in Prongay's murder.

It's not some random claim made by the NY Sun, it's an article by Jerry Capeci, who is, according to his Wiki article, "an expert on the American Mafia", so yes I'd say books and articles written by him qualify as third party and reliable.

Bruno's bio mostly focuses on Kuklinski's known crimes. He repeated Kuklinski's claim to have killed DeMeo, but it's carefully worded: "Years later Richard Kuklinski indicated that he killed Roy DeMeo..."

Do you have any reliable, third party sources which contradict Bruno's book?

See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

So I don't know what the AP obit says since I can only find three AP stories online that mention him. The NYTimes obit shows some skepticism about his claims and doesn't affirmatively state he was a hitman.

The New Jersey Record story cited in the Prongay section is a news report about the HBO special. I think this is part of the same story (since it's from the same day), and it quotes a prosecutor saying they may pursue a case against Kuklinski for killing Prongay based on the statements he made in the documentary and book. So the original usage implied there was some validity to Kuklinski's claims, however they were merely reacting to his claims. I am okay with adding back some material about Prongay but it should be sourced better and with proper context.

The Record seems to be the best most indepth source on Kuklinski but it doesn't have a free online archive. the article should be rebuilt using sources from this and other newspapers. The article titled "Ice Man Book Ridiculed as More Fiction than Fact" cites law enforcement agents and prosecutors to critique the claims made in Carlo's book. I can't read the full thing because there's no free online version and I can only preview part of it with newspapers.com, but I think it's enough to declare Carlo's book an unreliable source.

In regards to Bruno, I read page 179-181 where he talks about how Kuklinski and DeMeo knew each other and he did work for DeMeo. But none of the DeMeo books or sources ever talk about Kuklinski. The only source for any kind of a relationship between them is Kuklinski. These are the sort of things that make me question the books. Both books are heavily sourced to interviews with Kuklinski and it's obvious he has a self-serving narrative and much of it can't be verified at all.

In general, just because it's published doesn't mean it's a reliable source. Books with all sorts of wild claims are published all the time. The gold standard for books are Academic books published by University presses, which have the highest standard of fact checking.

There's a whole noticeboard to discuss whether a source is reliable or not at WP:RSN. You are free to open a discussion there about the NY Sun and Ganglandnews but they don't appear to be reliable sources. On Wikipedia the source is considered to be the publisher not the author and if the publisher has a good quality assurance and fact checking system then they're reliable. So anything Capeci writes in a newspaper or book is probably fine, but anything he writes on a blog is not.

We owe it to our readers to not give too much weight to Kuklinski's own self-serving narrative given that he is a criminal murderer with a penchant for exaggeration. The narrative of his life should largely be told through newspaper articles and law enforcement figures. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the AP obit which refers to Kuklinski as a "notorious Mafia hitman".

https://apnews.com/article/bcd36434f32a3c1d681df60a433f3dfa

Heck, here's the New York Times describing him as a "Mafia killer".

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/nyregion/20carlo.html

Can you cite any Wiki policy which states that the New York Sun, a published broadsheet, should not be considered reliable? And why a website run by an established mob expert should not be considered reliable. The rationale here seems very arbitrary. Capeci is only reliable when he writes for certain publications or in a published book?

Info from the Carlo book is obviously unreliable. As soon as it was published, cops and other people who knew Kuklinski refuted a lot of the claims made in it. Even the author himself backtracked on some of them.

The Bruno book generated no such reaction that I know of. As stated above, he didn't just uncritically repeat everything that Kuklinski told him, and did omit a lot of things he said he couldn't verify. Once again, can you produce reliable third party sources which state this book should be considered unreliable?

We owe it to readers to produce a balanced article, rather than just blanket removing anything that is sourced but you just think is untrue. It's better to include his claims, some of which are widely repeated and have received a lot of coverage from "reliable third party sources", and provide other reliable sources which contradict them where appropriate. Once again, WP:VNT.

Lastly, it's likely that Kuklinski DID know DeMeo in some capacity. Kuklinski made porn movies for clubs owned by DeMeo. He was seen going into the Gemini Lounge by police surveillance. George Malliband did owe money to DeMeo, and Malliband of course was killed by Kuklinski. He just wasn't a hitman for DeMeo like he claimed, and he didn't kill him.

Sittingonacornflake (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It's mostly about source quality. The highest quality source would be an academic book published by a Uni publisher. No such book exists as far as I know, so the next best are journalists from newspapers and law enforcement. It's their perspective that should be given primacy in the article. Before, like 75% of the article was based on books that are heavily based on interviews by Kuklinski. Meaning, that the article was mostly his POV, which makes the article not neutral and heavily slanted.

The NY Sun current online version looks like a right wing rag to be honest. Maybe the print version from 2002-2008 was reliable. I don't know but I'd rather stick with sources I know are trustworthy. But you'll have to take it up with the Reliable Source noticeboard. And on top of that, Jerry Capeci's piece looks like an op-ed rather than a work of neutral journalism. We should be using neutral third party sources rather than opinion pieces in questionable sources. On top of that, Capeci doubting Kuklinski killing DeMeo is still in the article cited to the NYTimes, and I added quotes from lawmakers whose opinion should have the most weight.

The old version of the article takes Kuklinski's narrative that the murder of George Malliband started after he had threatened his family. That's a story he made up years after the fact and not what he said in trial or during his plea deal. And obviously, murder victims aren't around to defend themselves while their murderers spin tales. Another example is the old version said that he definitively met "Robert Pronge" using the Wikipeida WP:VOICE. The new version sticks to the sources, which says Prongay was killed in 84, and then years later Kuklinski took credit for killing him. The claimed killings need to be put into their proper context as claims made after his arrest rahter than put into his confirmed criminal history.

The old version also had a paragraph saying Kuklinski's motives were deemed unusual by authorities cited to Carlo. Yet when he was arrested and put on trial authorities were very clear his motives were profit driven.

Just because someone published it in a book doesn't mean we have to care or include it in the article or elevate it to the same level as the findings of law enforcement. There's tons of books on all sorts of fringe topics and publishers don't always do very good fact checking. I don't know if Kuklinski knew Demeo or if Milliband owed money to DeMeo or anything. I don't know if he met Prongay. I'm just gonna record what actual high quality sources say about the case. If Newspapers didn't report on his claims, I'm not gonna include them. Just presenting his claims and then the critics is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Kuklinski and the authors who believe his story aren't on equal footing with law enforcement.

So cutting out the book sources cuts out a lot of the "Iceman Mythos" and then the article can be expanded with newspaper sources giving more information on the real case and trial and. The Iceman Myth claims did in fact generate news coverage in newspapers and it is their reporting that should be used as sources.

It seems like law enforcement took Kuklinski's claims more seriously in 1993 when he first started making them, but by 2006 they had made thorough investigations and concluded there was nothing to it. The quote by Paul Smith is devastating since it applies to all the claims made in both books. If someone can clip that article then more of that article can be used. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

GO Magazine

please change ((GO Magazine)) to ((GO (American magazine)|GO Magazine))

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. OhKayeSierra (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)