Talk:Killology

message: Giving this article a look, I'm concerned that it might not be completely NPOV, on both sides of the issue. I think it could do with a balanced look at some of the controversies around these theories, rather than a link to an external site in which a guy tries to debunk Grossman in what I consider to be a very unprofessional-looking manner. What are the issues and what are the responses on both sides? 23skidoo 21:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pushing the POV line

message: I removed this section from the Killology entry:
----
Common subliminal message
In 2005 an organisation by the name of Platnim 1000 (incorrect spelling intentional) began a research investigation to descover how to induce the mental conditions that occur in a serial killer when attempting to murder their victims. Their research led them to develop a subliminal message that supposidly increased the chance of a person commiting a murder. The sublinal message in question has been given the name "KILL" as a joke by its inventors. "KILL" was never proven to work, although there have been several incidents where "KILL" was supposibly exposed to a large group of people without there own knowledge or consent. The most famous being in a high school in liverpool, sydney.
"KILL" is a very basic messege that consists of just 8 lines and can be written in any direction, i.e right to left, up and down, left to right...
----
The subliminal message of "kill" has a tangential (at best) relationship to Killology and has little relevance to an encyclopedic article about Killology.
If anyone disagrees, feel free to replace the section (as long as you fix the spelling mistakes), and reply here why you think it is relevant to what has already been stated within the article.
Aubreygrossman 15:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subliminal Messages and Killology

message: Ladies and gentlemen, I am a senior in Psychology at Clemson University and for my capstone course we are editing articles on psych related topics. I chose Killology because I read Lt.Col Dave Grossman's book and was fascinated with the content. I am currently re reading it and also reading SLA Marshall's book Men Against Fire. I will keep everyone updated on changes I intend to make. At this moment I am outlining how I want the article to be structured and what content is necessary and superflous. If anyone wants to help or to get into contact with me please get a hold of me via my user page. 
Ddmassett (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Indeed. You might post a link to your sandbox or draft subpage. Here is more info: WP:SP.  – S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wikipedians here is a link to my sandbox. Please post any constructive criticism as you feel fit but do not edit. My professor is monitoring the space. On a side note due to class regulations I was forced to write more than I felt comfortable at this time, I will be going back and condensing information and properly cross linking and citing information. Ddmassett Sandbox --Ddmassett (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *It appears well written, but I'm a little uncomfortable with how it is almost exclusively sourced by a primary source (ie, the book). Grossman cites some of these examples and points in his book, so why not insert them? Although there is a little synthesis involved, I don't see anything that looks like it's problematic. I don't have a huge issue here, but if someone does challenge the amount of material from the primary source, I'd be hard pressed to defend it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Niteshift Thanks for the input, I am currently combing through the book getting sources that Lt.Col Grossman used and using them to cross-reference the material. I think this will add a much higher level of validity to the article.--Ddmassett (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would agree that adding those sources would increase the credibility and deflect allegations of the article being a promotion for his book. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedians, I have uploaded many changes to the article. Please give feedback for anything that you think needs changing or more explanation. Thank you for your help on this project, hopefully it will be the first of many Wiki uploads. --Ddmassett (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *The major problem here is still going to be the amount of primary source material. a disproportionate amount of material is from the book. Again, I'm not going to challenge it, but if someone does, it'll be hard to defend. If you want, you can invite input from the WP:NPOVN. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

text:  Can't really discuss the book's points without quoting from it. That's better than citing his sources, making this article appear to be drawing OR conclusions. Kortoso (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Major revamp of the article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Killology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721211742/http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp to http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo9/no2/16-engen-eng.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Radley Balko is a reporter for the Washington Post who specializes in criminal justice, including police misconduct including unjustified killing of innocent civilians. Here's an article that he wrote about Killology:
:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/11/20/albuquerque-police-lieutenant-advertises-killology-classes/
:Albuquerque police lieutenant advertises “Killology” classes
:By Radley Balko
:November 20, 2014 
Here's one of his sources: 
:http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/police-academy-director-defends-new-training-that-puts-fewer-limits/article_4ad9bdf1-f301-591c-ad09-e5fb6731c6d1.html
:New police training puts fewer limits on use of force
:By Uriel J. Garcia
:The New Mexican
:Feb 16, 2014
Killology is controversial among police. The New York Times and other major publications have also had stories on how killology-style police training encourages the killing of innocent people, including civilians who were shot in the back. Following WP:NPOV this entry should discuss the criticism. --Nbauman (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Balko blogs for them and this is an opinion piece where he tried to link a shooting by one agency to training later in the year. Since the training hadn't happened, it clearly wasn't a factor in the shooting, just a red herring. If Balko bothered to be honest, killology doesn't promote killing. It's the study of it and the effects. Grossman argues against how culture desensitizes it, not for it. But Balko only survives on a controversy. So is his opinion piece really relevant? Debateable. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything is debatable, but this Killology article uncritically accepts Grossman's views, even though many other police professionals disagree with them. There is nothing to indicate that Balko's feature is a blog rather than a column, but even if it is, WP:RS says "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control," which would apply to any blog by Balko. Furthermore, opinion pieces are WP:RS. WP:RS says "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia articles require all significant viewpoints. Do you agree? --Nbauman (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

text: *His bio line says:"Radley Balko blogs about criminal justice, the drug war and civil liberties for The Washington Post." Whereas actual reporters are labeled as reporters and their bio lines say "Matt Zapotosky covers the Justice Department for the Washington Post's National Security team" or "David Nakamura covers the White House." Do you see the difference? Or better, let's use the Washington Post's own words:  See the top? "Radley Balko Opinion blogger — Nashville, Tenn". Please stop arguing about things I'm not saying. I never said a blog can't be a RS or that opinion pieces are never to be used. You're claiming that "many" police professionals disagree with Killology. Then cite them and use the coverage of their disagreement. Balko does have opinions, but it's fair to question his objectivity. He work solely focuses on trying to create and fuel controversy. BTWE, as a side note, I'm an experienced user. There's no need to wikilink RS and NPOV for me, especially multiple times. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

text: *Also, the "source" Balko cites never mentions Killology at all. The Balko piece is more a screed about APD and he misrepresents Killology and implies a link to events that happened before the training ever happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you agree that Balko's piece, "Albuquerque police lieutenant advertises “Killology” classes," is a WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's an opinion piece published by a RS. (see how I did that without the wikilink?) Thanks for acknowledging that I was correct and that Balko is a blogger for the WP, not a reporter.  Niteshift36 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the two citations removed that criticized it as pseudoscience.  The first source was indeed clearly labeled as "opinion" and the second said Killology was similar to another program that was considered pseudoscientific (inference by association).  Since that's not very explicit, if mentioned I suggest attributing it as opinion.  —PaleoNeonate – 01:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics of Killology 

message: This article is absolute shit, and should be rewritten entirely or deleted. Temerarius (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Garbage

message: this is a link to a podcast episode all about this topic; the podcast features a journalist analysis of many topics. at the least, some of the sources cited in the podcast could be of use for one's research for this page.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0xt9iFLH9vx5GimA8y9FPl?si=458934571b74433c
*The podcast itself? Some reporters with opinions. Some of the sources? Maybe. Depends on which ones and what they're asserting. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe this is a good link to use?