While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
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
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
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
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.
Not done: please establish a consensus before taking any actions and doing so -
It depends on this matter. The photo must either be in the public domain, or be under the Creative Commons line. As always, Wikipedia allows non-free content and should be used at a minimum. Please talk with others before making the final decision. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡🗨📝01:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a shot (no pun intended) to ask UnitedHealth Group if they're willing to release a photograph of him under a free license. They did release a freely-licensed image of Andrew Witty not long ago. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was seen near the crime scene and he was seen uptown. I don't think that's worth showing on a map, unless this was a situation where there were multiple murders or attacks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the timeline section of this article and the linked outside news articles in my op? There are a fair number of spotting and movements in the time leading up to the shooting, so many that CBS, Newsweek and Al Jazeera all made maps of their own. Maximilian775 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources have since circulated photos of the alleged shooter, though a name has not yet been identified that I have seen. If that photo is ever confirmed, we could use it. guninvalid (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best practice to use a photo immediately before or after the shooting. The photos of the alleged shooter at other locations would be more appropriate in the body of the article. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using a still from the CCTV video seems to be what most editors want, and seems like an obvious choice as it is an image of the event itself. —Alalch E.14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guninvalid It was until about 10 minutes ago until I moved it and replaced all uses of assassination in the article (except for one direct quote). I am explaining why I made those changes and making it clear that they shouldn't be reverted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done)18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article would be best moved to Assassination of Brian Thompson, because this act targeted the CEO of a company, and not a random civilian.
I am not making a Move Request at this time, I'm merely asking why we are using "Killing" instead of "Assassination". Do we need to know the assassin's motive? What information is missing for this event to be called an assassination? It seems like "Killing" inappropriately paints the act as wonton and random, but the use of a silenced weapon, the plan to lie in wait at the specific spot Thompson would be, and the plan to escape feels more like an assassination plan. Please let me know what I am (or the sources are) missing. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That' being said… I don't believe WP:Assassination supports the title of "Assassination of Brian Thompson." WP supports "killing of…" until either/or a conviction is made (at which point WP:MURDEROF takes us to "Murder of Brian Thompson") or sources begin regularly referring to this as an assassination (looks like it may happen, but it is currently used too sporadically to justify it here, IMO).
It's not the "common established name." The fact the victim was targetted not random is irrelevant since most homicides are targetted. Also, subjects are consiered innocent till proved guilty in Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Assassination" come on, this isn't Tupac or Biggie Smalls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user
It is widely WP: UNDUE for the article to focus on Reddit & Twitter troll posts surrounding his death. The vast majority of Americans do not have an established opinion of Thompson at all and the posts appear to be a series of gripes about the American healthcare system in general.
The article wasn't "focusing" on social media posts at all. It was one or two sentences in a paragraph discussing reactions. Also, the positive reaction to his death has been reported on by many notable publications. I don't know how you can argue otherwise unless you're bothered by the celebration of his murder and are taking this personally. Eseress (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article does not "focus" on social media posts; there are a few sentences on it, which seems like due weight considering that the social media reaction was covered on the front page of the New York Times. The characterization of anyone as a "troll" is meaningless and unsubstantiated, and therefore an invalid criticism of the text that was removed. Einsof (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would leave some potential sources for a social media reaction paragraph here:
I think the version of the "Reactions" section you removed was unduly puffed-up and gossipy. However, given that multiple reliable sources have reported these reactions, I believe that they merit a short mention to provide context for the political and cultural climate this shooting took place in. I saw a shorter version of the paragraph discussing online reactions that was only 1 or 2 sentences—I think that would be appropriate. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the hours following the assassination, many American social media users shared their celebrations of the event, and contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system.
The problem is that those posts are ultimately not about Thompson. They're about the American healthcare system. There's many other public figures that have received significant dislike on social media (David Rockefeller, almost any political leader, etc.) that do not have these things mentioned on their respective pages and it seems to be the norm to not include
If a major public figure makes a statement saying so, then yes, I would support mentioning it in the context of the article. I do not believe that Reddit or Twitter posts (or mention of them in news outlets) merits mention. Random people online making statements is not news.
I think most people are glad he's dead. I sure am. And I think that that's relevant. The fact that so many Americans, a majority of those aware of it I would wager, are celebrating his assassination is absolutely worthy of emphasis. This sort of groundswell is the sort of thing that tends to indicate a massive shift in the trajectory of popular opinion. It indicates a rejection of, or a least a cynicism about, our system and its mechanisms for ensuring proper redress of grievances. This is unquestionably worthy of mention on Wikipedia. If it isn't mentioned now, it'll damn sure be mentioned the next time some CEO gets put down. George Mucus (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think most people are..."
"I would wager"
"I sure am"
What you "think" or "would wager" does not matter and is irrelevant unless you can provide reliable sources (e.g. a poll by a distinguished polling organization). Otherwise, while we can reference some of the coverage and prominent reactions to the event, we wouldn't be able to make a claim about what "most" people or Americans think or believe. Firecat93 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so many of these posts would have been made within a few hours if it weren't for the shooting, so it makes sense to include them. Also, Henry Kissinger's page includes criticism of him on social media following his death. Iamnotcapableofthis (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't seem like a tenable position. Social media is incredibly important nowadays, it is one of the main ways information is disseminated. WP:UNDUE means "don't give a viewpoint, facet, or idea more emphasis than it has in RSes," not "exclude something mentioned by RSes because it feels too Online™." The schadenfreude people expressed in posting about the Titan submersible implosion was also not just about the people who happened to be on the sub—their reactions to the event were a microcosm of their larger attitudes.
You're right that basically no one knew or cared about Thompson before this event, the same way most people didn't care about Stockton Rush before the implosion. Maybe it would be WP:UNDUE to have a section about people celebrating Thompson's death on the "Brian Thompson (businessman)" article, but this isn't the "Brian Thompson (businessman)" article—it's the "Killing of Brian Thompson" article. It's indisputable that people are reacting this way to his death, and it's indisputable that RSes are reporting on it. I see no reason to be so resolutely against including any mention in the "Reactions" section beyond an unreasonable bias against acknowledging social media in articles. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the posts are generally not about Thompson. This article from the New York Times lists five comments mentioning Thompson directly in addition to other comments expressing discontent with the state of the healthcare system. Even if most posts weren't talking about Thompson directly, the public outcry appears to be notable enough for several major news outlets to create articles about the topic. For example, the article on Shinzo Abe's assasination mentions the increased scrutiny of the Unification Church and the Liberal Democratic Party in the public response—not just the public's thoughts on Abe himself. This article deserves a similar section as well. Qbox673 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would also propose adding Abe's assassination to the see also section, healthcare companies have already announced changes to their policies similar to the japanese government turning against the Moonies. Its entirely normal for articles on highly publicized killings like this to include a broader context and public reactions. — jonas (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, entirely separate from that argument, I don't think an image of an alleged person of interest on this article in the first place. There is no solid public evidence that the pictured person is the shooter, and putting their picture under the subheading "Assailant" could easily cross into defamation, a BLP violation, or even a r/findbostonbombers situation.
Thing is, those images were released by the NYPD. I'm fine with them being removed for copyright, but if some witch hunt was to get started, it would be the police's fault and not Wikipedia's. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the moral world doesn't work like that. If thee picture is not the perp and the wrong guy gets lynched, we are (or might be) a link in the chain in the events that led to that event. The NYPD does make mistakes (e.g., murdering someone for selling cigarettes, which I would call a mistake). Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. They still haven’t nailed down a concrete identity of the shooter, so any images should be taken with a grain of salt.
B. As many has pointed out, they look like completely different people united only by the fact that they’re wearing a hoodie.
C. BLPCRIME
D. In the age of body cameras, are we really still considering the police a reliable source? A notable source certainly, but I would not say a reliable one. Snokalok (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early articles referencing words found on shell casings gave 3 words, but many sources seem to have reduced to 2 words, "delay, depose", quoting law enforcement sources responding to an earlier article giving 3. No current sources state 4 words, so I think that paragraph under Investigation needs to be updated. Chronoste (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are five or six items listed in the "See also" section. They all deal with various aspects of health insurance. That list seems odd in an article about the murder of Thompson. No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices."
Plus, given the wording on the shell casings... I would think that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is in play here. If you can find me an intelligent, honest, informed, disinterested, and sane human person who can look me in the eye and say that they truly believe that there's any reasonable level of doubt on this, that'd be different maybe. But there is no such person. Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Police authorities have consistently said "we don't know the motive". This very article itself says "motive unknown". In any event, the See also section seems to have a lot of (i.e., an inordinate amount of) irrelevant entries about health insurance topics. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entries in the See Also section that you are referring to directly relate to several parts of the article, including the Response section. Firecat93 (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind? The items listed are directly related to the subject of the article. If you have an argument against the inclusion of a particular entry, please explain. Firecat93 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the things in the See Also section seem to be there to support a political agenda. Since we don't yet know the motive of the shooter (the writings on the casings may have been there as a diversion), I think we should remove some (if not all) of these.
@Kingturtle, seem to be there to support a political agenda; WP:AGF, the first 3-4 seem especially relevant given the public response section of this very article, so readers who aren't familiar with US healthcare processes can learn about the subject being discussed as a possible motive for the assailant and for the nexus of many public reactions to the incident. —Locke Cole • t • c20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know the motive of the shooter yet. People are leaping to conclusions about the motive. That should not be a reason to add these things to a see also. This article needs to be about the shooting and not about speculation as to why the shooting occurred. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say it was a hired hit job for a different reason, and the shooter left misleading clues intentionally (a red herring) to make it seem like something else. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless, the salient links have been safely re-added since Kingturtle has elected to ignore my comment. I think the "motive of the shooter" is irrelevant with the public reaction that's taken place so far, reaction that is well sourced, verifiable and included in our article. —Locke Cole • t • c22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the See Also section should have topics related to this main article. Which has been reinstated to show similar topics to healthcare. Rager7 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BenjaminKZWP:NOTSEEALSO indicates that, as a general rule, links already included in the body of the article should not be repeated in a "See also" section. At the time this discussion was occurring, I don't believe many of the links above were in the article itself, but most of the relevant ones appear to be represented now. FYI, the see also section existed less than 50 revisions ago, but it only contained links to the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump, so clearly the section was being abused... —Locke Cole • t • c16:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I don't much care for "Should this be included in the article? Please remember that if you say 'no' you're a cossack, besides which your personal editorial opinion is no interest here here" tone, colleague. Surely there are better ways to state your case about this particular editorial question. Herostratus (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, chill out. I literally just asked whether this video should be included and a reminder that it is allowed on Wikipedia. Nowhere did I call others a "Cossack". It's a genuine question, and apparently you didn't see that. EF517:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the video upload @EF5 I cannot even begin to understand @Herostratus's reply to you. It's gibberish - but notwithstanding that, it also seems to be very WP:REACTIVE and WP:RUDE. I'm sorry you had to experience that EF5. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I get messages like that all the time. I've brung it up on their talk page, but anyways, let's keep this on-topic. EF518:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A public domain video of exactly the event in question is a clear-cut example of good image use. I see absolutely no reason not to include it in the article, aside from the potential fact that a better or more clear video may exist. Departure– (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy on removing material solely for being graphic, especially when it's use in the article is entirely helpful for illustrating the event. Wikipedia doesn't remove content just because some editors don't like it. Departure– (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stated aim of Wikipedia is as an encylopedia: I am not aware of any published encyclopedias showcasing what could be considered snuff, or at least active violent video. Consider, for example, that if no limits are put on presentable content, it may be permissable to include in articles: Scenes of explicit rape, images taken by stalkers, images created with the intention of harassing an individual, etc. in the name of informing the public. This is worthy of yellow news, not encyclopedias for the public: Should we post the full video of Kim Kardashions infamous Sex Type on the related article?
Perhaps even full length videos of films on their articles! They would doubtless be "informative".
It cannot be denied the video is informative, but of what? The contents of the video could be described with a few short sentences. This is the method used in films: the plot is described in text.
We're not going to censor the video that perfectly illustrates the subject while also being the subject of significant reliable source discussion, especially when it's freely licensed, just because it's graphic. And for the example you gave, if it had been non-copyrighted or freely licensed, it would likely have been uploaded to Commons at some point and linked to in the article. Also, Night of the Living Dead contains the full movie within the article as it is out of copyright. Departure– (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not simply a matter of censorship, but of inclusion. Wikipedia:scopes very first sentence describing what wikipedias aim is, is:
"Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, rather than try to contain all of it.", yet here we link the event ITSELF on camera. I am reminded of the Borges Empire-Map:
Encyclopedias should not be a map with a scale of 1 mile = 1 mile.
The necessity of this limit is immediate, in my opinion:
If the only criteria for acceptable content is informativity then it is not an encyclopedia but a free for all social media platform, an aimless postboard with no scope at all: All possible contributions are, themselves, information, even lies contain information useful to an apt interpreter, and this includes primary content. Yet, wikipedia avoids (as much as feasible) primary contributions. Is this not censorship? Even the removal of vandalism is, in some regard, censorship, as is decried by graffiti artists globally.
Consider that many youtube videos are more historically notable than some films with articles: If we can host whole films, wikipedia could directly host youtube videos "for archival purposes", and even the comment sections could be considered "live historical artifacts" in the making, what people comment about the video being the article content itself, like formal reviews. Wiki would be a mirror in both senses, just a platform for people to host links on. Wikipedia is popular, and may even exceed those websites it mirrors themself: Imagine for example a video category where all the most "notable" videos users find on social media every week are directly hosted by wikipedia within their daily microarticles, and the top comments get their own paragraph. The only source needed is that someone downloaded it and reuploaded it to wikimedia or somewhere...
I see no way to reconcile this attitude with that of an encyclopedia. Encylopedias do not host everything and anything. Wikipedia cannot achieve its scope without setting limits on what is outside it, and primary video of the event in question is in ky opinion outside it. Perhaps if the video were instead a reconstruction or diagram as News channels often do. The recency of the event just makes this more of an issue.
As for linking it: Linking as such is already troublesome, but can be simplified as the quotation of or reference to a source... but not always. On the internet, a link could be a source, or it could be the content itself. A website hosting a file could be a source, or it could be the original uploader. Its difficult to set a boundary here, but I do not think wikipedia should link to things like movie streaming services that host files, and we shouldnt host the content itself either. That is for libraries or archives. Perhaps we can link to an archive or news source from which the original video of the assassination was taken from?
I suppose the 9/11 article does have original video of the crashes so there is precedent to keep this. Us all treating video of recently dead humans as an spectacle doesnt sit right with me though.yourself: 84.71.254.229 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion of a widely distributed and culturally impactful depiction of the event is not inherently spectacle; graphic video is not added for sport. It is for illustration and reliable access. BenjaminKZTalk15:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
X = 20 feet should be changed to x = 9 feet.
The assilant was not waiting in front of the Hilton Hotel, but rather in front of the enwly named Luxury Collection Hotel (most recently called The Conrad Hotel). Journey2 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have stayed at the same hotel since 1997. I know the surrounding streets like the back on my hand. What has not been reported acturately is that he had only been walking ~18-20 seconds outside his hotel before being shot from behind. The shooter did not shoot from 20 feet, but from a much closer range (~ 9 feet). The shooter exited the area to his left which is NOT an alleyway as reported, but a courtyard. I have passed through this courtyard hundreds of times and have maybe seen 6-9 people in total. Very secluded from a people standpoint. Also highly under-reported. W54th street between 6th and 7th Avenues (even though it is one block away from Broadway and one block away from Avenue of the Americas), is very quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He took a cab to the New York Hilton and spent about half an hour walking in the area of the hotel before checking into a hostel on the Upper West Side, the chief said."
"The gunman left the hostel at 5:30 a.m. on Dec. 4 and rode a bicycle toward midtown, Chief Kenny said."
"At 5:41 a.m., he arrived at the Hilton and began wandering the area near the hotel, walking back and forth on West 54th Street, before going into a Starbucks, where he bought a bottle of water and a snack bar."
"After shooting Mr. Thompson at 6:44 a.m., he got back on the bike and made it into Central Park four minutes later."
"He left the park at 6:56 a.m., still on the bicycle."
"Surveillance cameras captured footage of him, still on the bicycle, two minutes later at 86th Street and Columbus Avenue."
"By 7 a.m. he was still on 86th street, no longer on the bicycle."
"He then he took a cab northbound to a bus terminal near the George Washington Bridge."
What to make of the claim that he was seen at 5am carrying what appeared to be a bike battery?
Wednesday, 5 a.m. - The suspected shooter was seen on video outside the nearby Frederick Douglass Houses public housing project, carrying what appears to be an e-bike battery, police sources told ABC News.
And where in the NYT timeline is his 6:15am emergence from the subway?
6:15 a.m. - Surveillance footage reviewed by police shows someone who appears to be the suspect exiting the subway before the shooting at the 57th Street station on the F line, just blocks from the shooting scene.
None of this meshes with either the NYT timeline above, or the current timeline in this article. Someone needs to compose a complete and verified timeline. 24.22.134.45 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images released by the federal government are allowed to be used as fair use (that might not be the technical term). I feel that the WP:BLPCRIME policy is more so related to crimes that are at the scale of local or state law enforcement but since it is also federal I feel that it would be okay to include since the individual is named as the suspect. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Unidentified Assailant" to the info box because I think that's important info, but I'm not sure if some combination of the above and "unkown" or "perpetrator" would be better. (Also, I'm relatively inexperienced here, so I'm wondering if there is a deliberate reason why my addition had not already been made.) Trilomonk (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assailant's identity seems pretty essential to (at least the reporting of) the case here. Going by the principle that Wikipedia should be an unbiased reflection of society I think the article and its info box should include the fact that the perpetrator is still at large. If authorities make arrests, then obviously we should be tactful in describing the suspects identity but as is I stand by my edit. Trilomonk (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to put images in the response section, please make sure they have to do with the response. I've removed images from that section that are 5 to 15 years old. I've also removed a chart about healthcare statistics. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The reference to Marriott is too ambiguous in the timeline entry: "Thompson leaves the Marriott hotel he stayed at the prior night, heading towards the New York Hilton Midtown hotel"
Suggest that it be changed to "Thompson leaves The Luxury Collection Hotel Manhattan Midtown he stayed at the night before ..."
For the record, "The Luxury Collection Hotel Manhattan Midtown" is the official name of the hotel, not "Marriott." You can't find this location by searching for "Marriott" on Google Maps (maps.app.goo.gl/GodsudQxH1vw3HGR9), as someone trying to follow the timeline might be apt to do.
I know Wikipedia doesn't care about being factual and I am not going to go looking for a reporter's confirmation (god forbid it comes from a non-kosher source). But it should be pointed out that people looking to find this location by searching "Marriott" won't be able to do so. 71.120.246.125 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The weapon used is not confirmed to be a B&T Station Six, and video evidence supports that it is not. The B&T Station Six is a single shot, manually operated, rotating bolt pistol. None of these traits were displayed in the security footage and is more likely a semi-automatic pistol with a tilt barrel design, with the lack of a suppressor booster.
Change "B&T Station 6 Pistol" to "Suppressed Semi-Automatic Pistol"; source article says "police believe" not a confirmation, and video evidence shows it is likely not the B&T Station 6. Jrr1221 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "Suppressed 9x19mm pistol." With the source saying it "may" be the B&T Station Six, I agree with your request; I'm leaving out the "semi-automatic" since that seems to be a point of debate, at least until we have reliable sources confirming it. With the B&T Station Six being bolt-action, that seems to be contested. Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The associated Press is reporting that "Police were looking into the possibility that the weapon was a veterinary pistol, which is a weapon commonly used on farms and ranches if an animal has to be euthanized quietly, Kenny said — though he stressed that hadn’t been confirmed." Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the Health insurance companies' removal of their leadership pages...
...their leadership pages complete with the names and pictures of the corporate executives are still available and preserved on the Internet Archive. I was going to add that fact to the article, but due to its protected status and my lack of interest in creating an account, someone else here with an account can do that instead. Would you please? Thanks. --2600:100A:B055:6AA6:7018:B0F6:5D9:10A1 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, rare footage of a modern killing of a high-power individual in stunning grainy, heavily-compressed 360p!
You can barely see what's going on. I've seen in it in higher quality, but during the intense media storm, it's hard to come by anything specific without spending hours on it. If anyone comes across a high-resolution version, please let me know, or just go ahead and replace the video file. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be the most bikeshedding thing ever, but...
I'm interested to hear others' thoughts about this: right now, we refer to the suspect with masculine pronouns throughout the article owing to the police describing them as a white man. However, is it correct – given what we know about them is minimal – to take a police statement which identifiers the assailant's likely sex and use that to identify their gender? Is it possible that instead of using "he/his", we should be using "they/their" since we don't really know? I'm sorry if this is genuinely the dumbest thing ever; it just got me thinking. I could honestly land either way on this, which is why I brought it up here. TheTechnician27(Talk page)02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNT. Reliable sources refer to him as a male and I've seen nothing to challenge that, unless of course the actual perpetrator were to come forward and say otherwise, which seems unlikely. Departure– (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. When I checked a few articles, I hadn't seen pronouns used for the suspect at all, but now that I'm reading ABC News' and BBC News' from the 'Assailant' section, I see now that they use those pronouns. Seems good to me. TheTechnician27(Talk page)03:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're supposing the circulating image of the smiling man is the assailant (which is the present consensus), and the hostel clerk that spoke with the subject has affirmed that he is male, I think that's enough rationale to stick with male pronouns for now. BenjaminKZTalk02:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image of Monopoly money is beneficial to the article, it's not the money found in the bag, it's just the photo from the Monopoly money article. If readers want to know what Monopoly money looks like, they can click on the link to that page. I'm going to WP:Be bold and remove it, but I'm posting this in the talk page so if someone disagrees they can talk about it here. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second two paragraphs in the Background section seem to be more related to Brian Thompson the person himself (2nd Paragraph) and UnitedHealthcare the company itself (3rd Paragraph) and I suggest that they be moved to their respective articles. As a clear motive is identified in the future this info may be relevant to include but for now I think it should be removed to avoid any WP:COMBINE issues. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All citations provided point to a widespread positive public opinion to Brian Thompson's death. Additionally this user is removing work that has been correctly cited. Article should be reverted to user:ich revision. Aqaz110 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the description of the reactions to the death described as being mixed? By any objective metric the reactions to his death have been overwhelmingly positive. 12:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.238.248 (talk)
Absolutely agree. The citations also support the positive reaction to his death. This is vandalism by user:wikiuser815 and should be reverted. Aqaz110 (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources have been discussing Andrew Witty's comments on the shooting and public response, specifically a leaked video of him criticizing the public sentiment against Brain Thompson's death and United Health increasing security as a direct result:
Given his proximity to the case and relation with Thompson, they might be worth adding. There are more critical sources floating around of Witty's message, including some that criticize it directly, but I've avoided putting them here since they are not likely relevant enough and could run afoul with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In all fairness, calling Willy's leaked message 'controversial' would likely suffice but it's a rather moot point in my eyes.
The graphic caption says "Claim denial rates by insurance companies, as of December 5, 2024" however, that's inaccurate. That's when the user downloaded the graphic. If you go to the source URL linked in the graphic, it says "Company claim denial rates are based on CMS Transparency in Coverage public-use files (PUFs) downloaded on March 1, 2024, covering the period from Jan. 1, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022." So those claim denial rates are as of the year 2022, not 2024. -- Datareader29 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention heightened discussion of jury nullification?
We need reliable sources discussing it for it to be included. Besides, they don't even have an identified suspect, let alone an arrest made at this point. Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to put images in the response section, please make sure they have to do with actual responses to the killing. I've removed images from that section that are 5 to 15 years old. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Sanders quote is about healthcare reform, he did not say it in response to the killing. Please keep it out of the response section. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41, I noticed in your edit that a couple of inline references were removed from the paragraph beginning with "Within days, ...". This looks like it was accidental, but I would like to double check if this was on purpose or not. (If it was an accident, I think it would be best to add those references back - that paragraph could use more citations). Thanks for your edit! -- WrenFalcon (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slapped the article with a current events tag. NYPD are releasing frequent updates regarding the manhunt for the killer, such as possible whereabouts, CCTV images, etc. New information is being released daily. Synorem (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that User:Firecat93 has been reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version that removes content that has anything to do with the Social media reaction to the shooting because, according to edit summaries, they think it is subjectively "irrelevant", "improper", "not relevant", "irrelevant x2", "irrelevant", "not worthy of inclusion" without claiming how the change is detrimental. Firecat93 doesn't refersto relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Using all caps when reverting a reversion and accusing another redditor of adding irrelevant information twice in one edit summary borders on WP:PA.
See bullet points 2, 3, 4 and 6 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Firecat93 has also added an image of Bernie Sanders at a 2017 press conference to a section that may or may not have relevance to the page, but the edit summary that it does have "relevance" to a section that does not mention BErnie Sanders feels like a thought terminating cliche. There is voluminous WP:RS out there about the public reaction to the suspect's resemblance to Timothee Chalamet, and the unwillingness of internest sleuths/crowdsourced investigators to find the suspect, but Firecat93's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR has had a chilling effect on my willingness to post any of them. I'm asking for a WP:CONSENSUS on whether these observations have merit or not. Kire1975 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I honestly do appreciate it, and If you had personally reached out to me about your concerns, I would have also responded agreeably. Nevertheless, I am grateful that you've shared your concern here.
I do believe that it's unfair to say that I have been acting to "protect a certain version that removes content that has anything to do with the Social media reaction to the shooting". There is still plenty of existing content in the article about the public and social media reaction in the Reaction section. I did, however, remove a few portions. Given that you've shared this concern, if any of these portions are added back again, I will not remove them once more. I hope that this commitment will resolve this issue.
At the same time, here's why I made the changes you referred to:
I removed the references to the look-alike contest, "assailant" (should be referred to as suspect, not assailant, which was how suspect was mistakenly referred to in the article) resemblance to Timothee Chalamet, and observations by online 4chan and Reddit "sleuths" that were described as "crowdsourcing investigations", as I didn't believe that they met WP:RELEVANCE and Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. I would argue that they give a disproportionate emphasis to marginal details about the public response (which may be better suited in tabloid magazine - WP:NOTGOSSIP). If you add them back, however, I will not remove them again, although I would appreciate the feedback of other editors.
I did also remove the photo, "An example of the public hybristophilia on social media," which is described as "Own work: a collage using an undated photo released by the New York Police Department." It had already been agreed upon not to include images of the suspect, and this wasn't a social media image, as described, but a "collage" created by a Wikimedia contributor using a photo that may or may not be properly licensed. See description: "This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source and copyright information for all work incorporated in this file is missing." "Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this notice was added and the uploader was notified on 9 December 2024." For these reasons, I do, in fact, believe that it would be inappropriate to include this image.
I believe that I simply followed the existing consensus and instructions listed in the note on the page (which I did not add) - "DO NOT ADD PHOTOGRAPHS OR PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION OF ANY SUSPECT WITHOUT SEEKING TALK PAGE CONSENSUS. WP:BLPCRIME SETS A HIGH BAR FOR THE ADDITION OF SUCH MATERIAL."
I agree that I should probably make my edit descriptions clearer and ask consensus before making major changes. I also agree that I should not have written the word, "ITSELF", in all CAPs in one of my edit summaries. At the same time, I have tried to be cordial (e.g. "Let's make sure only to include relevant information"). I'm sorry for the times that I haven't been. I also apologize for not directly discussing my concerns about some of the content in the article's Reaction section in the talk page before removing them.
@Kire1975, I do not have a personal grudge against you. I hope that we can resolve this cordially. I will be more mindful going forward. Thanks again.
Finally, much of the feedback that I've received for my contributions to this page have been positive (I've included an example below). I hope that some of my contributions have also been helpful.
------------------
Thanks for your help on the Brian Thompson American healthcare system paragraph!
Ah, this really is a beautiful moment in wikipedia history. Everyone coming together to write the most thorough article possible on this event Snokalok (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
I appreciate the cordial response here. It is very cordial. I also understand why you would think that the Timothee Chalamet reference might be [[WP:NOTGOSSIP] but with more context, I believe it is 100% WP:DUE. The public reaction to it is extraordinary and notable. I'll be adding WP:RS at the end of the comment to back up my theory, but it is plain as the tip of my nose that the the shooter lookalike contest in Washington Square Park is a direct callback to the Timothee Chalamet lookalike contest in Washington Square Park that went viral in non-tabloid media just a few weeks ago. Other reliable, secondary and verifiable RS about the circus-like public reaction include but are not limited to:
Thanks again. Your cordial responsde might actually be a historic event in my career as a Wikipedian who sometimes picks fights with other editors, but I probably shouldn't poke the bear anymore. I'm definitely not trying to take anything personal against you either. I hope this helps the page. It's very late here. I gotta go to bed. Kire1975 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The suspect was described as being "extremely camera savvy,"[45] and as of December 8 has not been apprehended.[4]" to "The suspect was described as being "extremely camera savvy,"[45] and as of December 9 has not been apprehended.[4]" 49.145.161.34 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients' denied healthcare." to "In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients denied healthcare." The apostrophe included erroneously alters the meaning of the sentence, making 'healthcare' the subject of the sentence experiencing harm or death. BrokeBoneGrinder (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. Public response and interpretation is one thing, but we're supposing the killer's intent when it could otherwise be misdirection. BenjaminKZTalk14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back to unknown and left in the possible language. I also took out the "justice" motivation because that language seems very inflammatory and unwarranted. HorseDonkey (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article. Is this worth adding? Even if it doesn't end up being the assailant, it is significant as the first person being questioned in relation to the killing. Chronoste (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a tabloid trying to sell papers, and we don't have the urgency than news media have. Someone being arrested for gun charges and being identified by NY police as a person of interest does not seem sufficient per WP:BLP to name him as The Suspected Assailant. If he is formally charged, in court, then we could add that fact, stating that he is just charged, not that he is the culprit. Even if someone is convicted, best practice would be to sayy he was convicted, or found guilty, as opposed to saying he IS guilty. Edison (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Man held for questioning in Pennsylvania, sources say
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The arrested suspect's name is being published by several news outlets, but doesn't seem to be confirmed by police. Per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT, we probably shouldn't publish the name until the police confirm. There is a press conference in a few hours.
I'm of the opinion that if and when Luigi Mangione is charged, we amend the infobox to say "1" under "Accused". Until then, he's a mere person of interest. In short, I agree with you. BOTTO (T•C)18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro: Is that the guy whose name you put in the article? I don't know, but the New York Times gives it as the name of the suspect. Now please quit reverting me, you are over WP:3RR. I've put in 90% of the info about the suspect. You just keep putting it at the bottom of the section, which is not useful at all. If you want to put it at the bottom of the section, just call an RFC below. Smallbones(smalltalk)18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of when I originally posted, I hadn't seen any official confirmation on any news sites. With confirmation by the commissioner, I'd be more comfortable with the name being there. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says this literally at the top: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. We have significant reliably sourced statements that all point at him by name. He has achieved notoriety for this shooting long before being named as the suspected shooter. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude the name. —Locke Cole • t • c00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUSPECT says we should "seriously consider not including material... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime", not that we should never include it. For something with this much media attention I think we should include Mangione's name, some background info, say that he was arrested "in connection" with the crime, and note that he hasn't been charged with anything (what NYT does). Considering that his name has already been published in NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, Forbes, Axios, BBC, USA Today, Wired, The Independent, CBS, The Times, The Intercept, People, and New York Magazine (all reliable sources), I really don't see a point in leaving him out of the Wikipedia page. – MW(t•c)00:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" may have been wrong; if so, my apologies. My main concern was that the restored paragraph is essentially a (less-optimally worded) duplicate of the last paragraph in the same section. NapoliRoma (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Police have confirmed that Luigi Mangione is the suspect who was arrested and multiple reliable outlets (BBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) have published the name. This is a notable event and at this point Luigi Mangione has become a public figure. I suggest that we say something along the lines of "a person of interest, who police have identified as 29 year old Luigi Mangione, was detained...". Rayanblaq14 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ashamed that Wikipedia's article is so terrible. Those who control the article have santitized it so much that the suspect's section of the article is far less detailed that in the news. Usually, it's the other way around because Wikipedians collect info from various sources.
OK, I get it that these controlling editors don't want to put the guy's name in the article. But let there be other information. For example, if we know his school, we still can't identify a specific person.
Do not trash Wikipedia by making the article crap. This is already being done by restricting what is being put in. The Article Controlling Editors just remove good faith edits of others and, in doing so, ruin Wikipedia. Bolding is not shouting per WP:SHOUT.
. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thread retitled from "Include the name of the person of interest".
WP:BLPCRIME does not say we cannot name the person of interest. It says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime." A reasonable editor may seriously consider not including the name but conclude that the fact that the suspect is named at the top of the home pages of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and NPR means that Wikipedia should also include that information. --JFHutson (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The police released the name of the suspect after the arrest. That is a notable part of the events that have unfolded, and certainly has value in being included in the article. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if Richard Jewell was alive and committed the alleged crime NOW in 2024, then even though eventually he might still be cleared as suspect and exonerated, but you still have to create and update the entry, and not necessarily waiting for that long to say be charged specifically with this and that...remember, at first, when a suspect is arrested, the person might be charged with one count, but later on with multiple counts...
Because sometimes if the developments moved in warp speed(like days ago Fall of Damascus and Collapse of Assad's regime), then you don't even have time to really say "wait at least until"...because if you finally get the confirmation later, the development is already on another level, and your confirmation is simply outdated again. Bf0325 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is rather too typical in circumstances like these for there to be a race to include emerging details - in particular an emerging detail that doesn't really change the story. It's just a name at this stage - it's what happened that is important, not the name. It can wait. Apparently he goes by numerous pseudonyms, so what does it really matter just now? It's all a bit reminiscent of people who post "First" in the comments section of popular video sharing channels. There is no rush - all in good time. The identify of the person of interest is positively no secret, and the race to include it here on Wikipedia is all a bit meaningless. The name is probably the most widely shared/published name on the internet at this moment, and it adds nothing to the encyclopaedic quality of the article to be in a race to add it. The article meanwhile can be added to by the inclusion of important, newly emerged details. The suspect's name is just a name - it doesn't alter the facts of what happened/is happening. I wish the editors who are so intent on arguing the toss about whether it's permissible to include a name could focus on tasks that matter in an the encyclopaedic sense instead of battling it out to be the first to add the largely irrelevant detail of a name which the whole world already knows. I get annoyed when editors jump in with WP:DONTDOTHIS or WP:DONTDOTHAT or WP:NOTANEWSPAPER - it's as ridiculous as the Pitch Perfect films where everything is prefixed by ACCA: except those films are pretty funny and the nerdiness is self-effacing humour - but for once the fascination with quoting WP:POLICIES makes sense to me. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see the suspected assailant referred to as 'Assailant.' This is disappointing to see in Wikipedia, since we are scrupulous about being fair and not making explicit judgments before he has made been put through a trial.Dogru144 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Although he was caught red-handed and is clearly as guilty as sin, he deserves due legal process and the presumption of innocence. Am I allowed to make a tongue-in-cheek remark like this provided I don't name any names or have I just landed myself a lifetime block? Being serious - doesn't the article merely talk about the assailant at the moment, as opposed to giving the alleged identity of the assailant? Isn't it kind of obvious that there was an assailant or are you suggesting there is only a suspicion that someone held the gun that fired the bullets that killed Brian Thompson? It's only when someone says "the assailant is suspected to be" that the problem arises. I think the Wikimapedia Foundation is on a safe legal footing to state unequivocally that there was an assailant. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luigi Mangione has been charged with second-degree murder in New York. Am I correct in saying that this is enough for Mangione's name to be added to the page as a suspect? Jbvann0506:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because of how many editors provided arguments against including the name for now, that would probably be a good idea, if only for the sake of putting an end to the debate in a well-defined manner. But the fact that one is needed is pretty pathetic. LVMH11 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. Just because a larger number of people make really bad arguments doesn't mean we need to listen to them. —Locke Cole • t • c08:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accused is no longer a "person of interest" and has been formally charged with murder. This means that it should be ok to name him in the article, as all of the world's media has done. Things have moved on since yesterday. ♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Smallbones, if you insist that the current event be at the top, then the rest of that paragraph is essentially unnecessary. It makes no sense to have the paragraphs about the suspect description and beginning of the manhunt afterwards. It should be chronological. Furthermore, per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT, the name of the suspect probably should not be on the page yet, and per the comments added (not by me!) to the page, it should have a talk page consensus. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to delete the rest of the paragraph if you'd like. It's worth at least a short sentence now IMHO. As far as quoting policy to me it says:
"editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime."
I've seriously considered, and it seems to me I've only written that he has been arrested and is a suspect in the case, according to the New York Times. What you read into that is your business, but don't attribute it to me. There's no requirement in policy to bring it to the talk page. Smallbones(smalltalk)19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - with all the other edits doing on I only saw the suspect's name pop up in the top-positioned paragraph upon one of your reverts, I hadn't seen it originally edited in by someone else which was apparently the case. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I support removal of the name until arrest in direct connection with the shooting. Right now, he is only arrested for the illegal weapon. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John Broughton: The person was only a person of interest at 19:40 UTC on the 9th, hence he is only arrested for the illegal weapon and until arrest[ed] in direct connection with the shooting. I thank you for the later update. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a section that claims the brutal murder of this man as "widely" celebrated with no sources whatsoever and seems extremely biased to me. Zefalls (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will not be "instantly banned" for removing uncited material. It's in Wikipedia's policies at WP:V that "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". It's possible someone may disagree and restore it, and then a discussion on the talk page can take place about finding reliable sources and making sure the text aligns with the sources. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with other editors that social media posts should not be included in great detail. Nor should he be described as a "folk hero" in the introduction. People are confusing Wikipedia with activism here. My personal opinions aside, the article comes across as predominantly positive about him being assassinated, which is greatly worrying. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right well since you’re new, I’ll say wikipedia has policies on notability and POV edits thar I’d encourage you to read, and the vast majority of editors on this page over the last several days have contributed to sections detailing the public response, so clearly consensus is in favor of its inclusion. Saying you think it shouldn’t be included because you don’t like that it platforms a popular POV you disagree with is called POVPUSHING and wikipedia has rules against it. Snokalok (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying or not, covering public response to this is part of the story. As I recall, the article didn't describe him as a folk hero, just said that he had been described as a folk hero - a source-able claim. HelenaBertrand (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41 I agree that previous versions of this article were grossly biased/activistic, but as of right now it seems to be in a better position, factually stating that social media is reveling while the family is mourning. ypn^221:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A libelous image was inserted into the article that implied that Bernie Sanders supported the assassination of Brian Thompson. This has been removed under WP: BLP policy. The consensus is to not add any pictures outside of the crime scene for now. I agree. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting occurred early in the morning, and the suspect, colloquially referred to as the Co-Pay Killer[4] and described as a white man, fled the scene.
Anecdotally, I've seen him referred to as "The Adjuster" more than "the Co-Pay Killer", and google trends substantiates this, however I cannot find any non-social-media sources to substantiate this. Given the lack of searches for "Co-pay Killer" I am tempted to WP:BOLD remove it, as it is therefore not "colloquial", but would prefer to replace it with "The Adjuster" if anybody can find some reliable media calling him this. Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish.20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Baltimore's WMAR-TV had released new information about Luigi, stating that his family was well-known throughout the state. The family owns two resorts and talk radio station WCBM. Mangione's cousin is sitting Maryland State Delegate Nino Mangione, who represents District 42A.
Right now the consensus seems to be that per WP:SUSPECT, the name of the person of interest who has been arrested is not to be included. As of right now, he hasn't even been charged with anything in relation to the crime, just a gun crime in PA. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if the name of the arrested man is withheld here, ok. But the editors who are controlling this article (and that should not be the case) should allow good faith edits that have other information about the man. Usually Wikipedia is a great place for information but here it is so far lagging behind other sources because article controlling editors are removing so much information. That is terrible and why Wikipedia is failing the world in this article. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is more of a moot point at the moment - however, to my understanding, wikipedia is not a source of breaking news. It's an encyclopedia, and can afford to be a bit prudent when it's airing out all of someone's business who was initially just a person of interest. I get the want to add in all available information and context about the subject of the article, which is of course a laudable goal, but, especially given how much everyone else was plastering this stuff everywhere, I don't think wikipedia would be failing the world by showing some caution. Quite the opposite, even.
Seems like we shouldn't have it added until the suspect is at very least arrested for the crime in the article, at which point a more full profile of him will likely be added as in other "Killing of ..." articles. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That rule merely states that articles should not make a determination of the suspect's guilt, not that information about suspects shouldn't be included. Reliable sources are clear that it is highly probable that his beliefs and life history are why he committed the killing. The suspect had a manifesto. To not mention this in the article is madness. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been charged with committing the killing yet though, so we shouldn't be building out a profile of someone who is currently just a person of interest, however likely it may seem to be that it's him. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly probable that his beliefs and life history are why he committed the killing That's the problem though, we don't know if the person arrested is the killer. We should wait for more details. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The POI uploaded a YouTube video 2 hours ago. It is titled "The Truth", with a 60 second countdown. It says "If you see this, I'm already under arrest", and ends with "Soon... Dec 11th". The channel was created in January. This is related to my previous thread on WP:BLPCRIME, but this feels much more... important than social media. I've attached the video below, there is no MSM coverage as far as I'm aware yet. I do not believe this should be added to the article as it could still be a hoax (if the channel was hacked or renamed), but everyone should be aware of it.
It's most likely just a renamed account. The video was uploaded after his arrest too. Not saying its not his account but unlikely. Maybe wayback machine can help. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taken down "already". Pretty sad to see something like that was possible in the first place, I mean this is supposed to be "quantum computing" Google. Looks like someone tried to capitalize on it, in a rather literal sense. Way too easy. Wouldn't be surprised if the rubbish reached half a million views even in that time. -2001:9E8:6AA5:4B00:A00:27FF:FE34:1184 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Pape, an expert in political violence at the University of Chicago, told The Guardian that the response of online commentators was indicative of Americans' growing acceptance of violence to settle civil disputes.
I don't think this is true, and the quote ignores the use of violence throughout American history, particularly in regards to the Gilded Age (which I think is already discussed). This is part of the American philosophy of the four boxes of liberty, which have been part of the culture of America since the beginning. Frederick Douglass: "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box." Douglass did not mention the soap box, as he appears to referring to the use of three boxes by Stephen Decatur Miller. America has always been a violent society, from the time of the colonial conquest and the subjugation of the indigenous people, to the time of the American Revolution and the war against the British, to the settlement of the American frontier during the Wild West, to the Civil War, to the running battles and skirmishes over workers rights, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, and the right to healthcare. There is literally no sense of a "growing acceptance of violence" occurring. This is something that Pape made up. All the crime statistics shows that violent crime is at the lowest levels in all of American history. Given the easy to prove, erroneous nature of Pape's opinion, I recommend either removing it or clarifying it with a relevant quote about the "four boxes", provided it is directly relevant to this topic from the source. Leaving Pape's opinion here without question is a form of misinformation. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately Robert Pape expressed an opinion to the guardian, an arguably incorrect opinion, but an opinion repeated by MSM never-the-less. Wikipedia is not construing this opinion as fact, just saying that he said it. I don't think its our place to insert our own opinions to the contrary unless these opinions have proper citations. Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish.22:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is a growing acceptance of violence to settle civil disputes in America is Pape's idea. He refers to it as "violent populism". His opinion should be rewritten to make it clear that this is his personal pet topic. If you look at what he has said about this topic on the past, he appears to classify the alleged shooter in the same category as the Tree of Life shooter, the El Paso shooter, the Buffalo shooting, the Pelosi attack, and the two Trump assassination attempts, as if they are all the same phenomenon. They are clearly not. More to my point, Pape speaks to actual numbers. He says 6% of Americans supported the use of force to restore Trump to the presidency while 8% supported the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president. None of this, I repeat once again, none of this compares to the political violence of the past. Violent crime has fallen by 50% in the last 30 years or so. While I'm not so fond of citing Steven Pinker due to some controversy, this is an area of research he has published widely about. When seen in this light, Pape's idea, particularly in regard to this incident, has no merit. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the work you put in so far, but he does not need an article. He is not notable beyond this incident I can almost guarantee it will be declined to be approved when moved to mainspace. People like Adam Lanza, Jesse Osborne, Anthony Dwayne McRae, etc all do not have their own articles; it simply stays in the main event article. It is possible that in the future he may become notable enough for his own article due to events surrounding the trial, etc, but for now he is just a person of interest and if he is arrested and charged in connection to the crime it'll still be best to have the info remain in this article. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, correct. Being the subject of a nation-wide manhunt ... for an infamous murder ... is, ummmmmm, irrelevant. Because ZimZalaBim on Wikipedia said so. LOL. So glad that I ignore that $2.75 Wikipedia donation appeal, when it pops up. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I'm at a weak keep for the Luigi article. A burst of news coverage isn't enough, but if the news and other secondary sources keep covering the ongoing legal proceedings and other things about Luigi, that would clearly warrant a standalone article. HorseDonkey (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's probably imprudent to rule out the possibility of him getting an article just yet. His trial is likely to yield more press coverage, which could add to the importance of his actions. His early life, political beliefs, alleged crime, manhunt, and upcoming trial seems enough to constitute an article. Trilomonk (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but did we not give Ryan routh an article even though barely anyone remembers him, as mangione was successful in his assassination, doesn't that make him noteworthy enough for a separate article? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wesley Routh. This was a discussion to delete the article you mentioned. The discussion was closed as No Consensus. The main point of discussion appears to have been WP:BLP1E and the condition that appears to have mattered the most was the third condition: The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. It is not clear if the same condition is met or not for this individual. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He should have an article. He's quickly becoming a known name in the public eye. However, I think we should wait a bit more until the trial begins and more information comes out. At that point, there will be too much information that we will need to have a separate article to avoid excessive clutter on this page. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view there's a bit too much content about the reaction of social media users. Regarding social media users specifically, I think it's sufficient to state in the article that (according to sources) many social media users shared their contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system. But does Wikipedia really need to state that "90,000 Facebook users responded with a "Haha" (or "laughing") reaction." In my view this level of content from social media users is not essential for an encyclopedic article as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reactions like those you have described are in bad taste, and I guess many of them come from people who had never heard of BT prior to his murder. But for me it's an important encyclopaedic detail to note that large numbers of people felt it was appropriate to express contempt for the victim and elation at his murder. It's an important, relevant and somewhat tragic illustration of the current zeitgeist that people are 'comfortable' to apparently celebrate a murder, despite the victim's apparent/alleged role in harming public health in one of the world's most developed/populous nations. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to do is to acknowledge that, yeah, among some quarters, that alleged suspect(Luigi Mangione) was regarded as folk hero, but we need not include all of that---Even John Dillinger was regarded as folk hero or Robin Hood of sorts back in 1934, but it doesn't change a bit he was still a bank robber and an outlaw anyway. Bf0325 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Robin Hood was much earlier than 1934. Nottingham and the surrounding woodland areas were already very urbanized by then and there's no way he could have carried out his brand of merry chauvinist guerrilla warfare in the largely undetected way that legend would have us believe. Although it was 1930s England and most folk were rejoicing in the peaceful inter-war period and perhaps too busy enjoying themselves to care about a well-meaning but deadly thug roaming among the trees dressed in green pantyhose. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. The section also has a wide variety of reliable sources, including articles that specifically talk about the apathetic/positive reaction to the killing, not just the killing in general. Cortador (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time and again we see people mistake the views of internet mobs for widespread public sentiment, and time and again that isn't the case. I agree that some mention of this perverse phenomenon is due (and is covered in numerous RSes), but be careful with the language and avoid any phrasing that might imply these are mainstream views. Remember, it was a good citizen who tipped the police off. These mobs thought the suspect was being protected, and that wasn't the case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone thinks they are mainstream views because the sources support that view? There is an issue in qualifying or quantifying "mainstream", but significant news media like BBC are not being shy about reporting the "celebratory" content being posted on social media.
All that aside, it may be useful to realise that people/editors might/will/can substitute "I think that..." for "I think (because I've read sources that back up my thinking) that...".
For example, I think Thompson and his firm sound like rogues - that's my opinion based on reliable sources and data I've read. I'd expect people to jump on the word "opinion" - apparently we're not to have those. But once again, it's reasonable to stop and ask if I'm merely substituting the word "opinion" for "conclusion based on reliable sources".
Anyone following this story must surely have read analysis of the social media reactions - news outlets aren't merely quoting "Bob in Tennessee who posted a 'thumbs up' emoji in response to a post about Thompson's murder. They're discussing thousands of posts, some with hundreds of thousands of 'likes'". It is significant. And it's probably, as far as I can think of, the first time the murder of a civilian has prompted large scale "approval" on social media. It's ugly, it's understandable (which doesn't mean it's proper - it simply means it can be understood why it's happening without approving of it), and I guess it marks another grotty milestone in the evolution of social media.
In conclusion: it would be helpful I think if people avoid the kneejerk reaction of stonewalling reasoned discussion with interjections of "don't think' or "don't express an opinion" - because thoughts and opinions can simply be substitute words for "reasoned judgement" or "evidenced summation".
Having a section attempting to summarize the US health system (all with sources unrelated and prior to these events) is WP:SYNTH and borderling WP:OR trying to assume a connection between these (arbitrary) features of the US system and the context for this shooting. If there are things to reference from the suspect's actual views, then perhaps that sourced material could be included, but not what's been inserted (and re-inserted) at this point. --ZimZalaBimtalk02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that his remuneration package was in essence "save a billion, earn a million". I can see why people are annoyed that their relatives died drug-and-medical-care-free-deaths. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a quote from the accused's manifesto:
"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful…"
Does this conjecture regarding the US Health Insurance industry not sufficiently make relevant an appropriately-sized (I don't pretend to know what depth is justified here) section regarding the insurance industry's practices? Trilomonk (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snokalok Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY. Drawing material from sources unrelated to the shooting implies a motive that we have no evidence for (as far as we know, Brian Thompson was killed for having an affair with the shooter's wife). If you can find sources directly connecting the shooting to the info in the paragraph then it can stay but would need to be rewritten to only draw from those sources. – MW(t•c)02:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow closing as include. Based on the wide publication of the suspect's name in reliable sources in today's papers, this sample of wikipedians believes the name of the suspect should be included. Further discussion seems unlikely to change the outcome consensus. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Also,why include a page about Brian Thompson that describes many of the faults during his time as CEO and not have a page about the murderer that could expand on many of his motivations and activity online. It might be more important to have a page of the murderer instead of the victim. 2600:8806:90A0:3B00:DC52:C339:1D55:3B4D (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include. WP:CRIME says cover perpetrators when the motivation/manner for the crime is unusual. In this scenario this is definitely the case given the nature of the killing and the sheer amount of press and popular discourse it is receiving. FWIW I don't think the shooter should have an article at this point, but just for his name to be included in this article. Also his name is covered overwhelmingly in RS, see: BBC, NYT, ABC, no point in even linking articles as it's everywhere you look... LVMH11 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I ask users to refrain from adding the name until consensus is formed here. I've already reverted it once myself. I have no interest in the outcome of this RfC. BusterD (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per LVMH11's arguments. I think we've well blown past the standards set by WP:BLPNAME. That being said, we should hold off on creating an article about the shooter for a couple weeks for a fuller perspective on their notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because this individual has become a public figure. But we need to be extremely careful what information is added to the article about this individual. Even though this is a public figure, they still deserve a right to privacy. We do not want/cannot have trivial, speculative things added to this article. This article must not become a place of experts weighing in or a place of agendas being spotlighted. Also, no matter how guilty the individual seems, an arrest is not proof of wrongdoing. Kingturtle = (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia often errs on the side of caution, especially for living individuals, to maintain responsible and accurate reporting. Reasons not to share the name of this arrested person in this article may stem from several ethical, legal, and editorial reasons. Kingturtle = (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adult person charged with murder, name widely disseminated, notable event, much coverage in the aftermath: No concerns (regarding the name as such). —Alalch E.09:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we should name him in the article but be sure to include language like "allegedly" as to continue to presume his innocence until formerly convicted in a court of law. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at this point he has been charged with murder, news sources around the world have reported his name, and with his name all over social media (i.e. satisfies the threshold of public figure) Wikipedia should also follow suit and name him. Do note that presumption of innocence applies given he's only charged and not yet convicted. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close. Of course it should be. There is no conceivable purpose being served by censoring ourselves from mentioning a name that was printed on the front pages on most US newspapers today. — JFHutson (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Regarding the endlessly repeated bar chart showing UH's 32% "claim" denial rate -you might want to consider where those figures came from, and the fact that they're essentially guesstimates since information on private plans is kept confidential [1]. You might also want to take note of the difference between a "claim" (request for payment for a treatment already received) and a prior authorization request (pre-approval for a treatment not yet received)[2]. One suspects that the people trying to link UH's "claim" denials to denial of medical care aren't aware of this distinction.
I was also surprised to see mention of the suspect's "right wing" views. Whatever he's said against 'wokeism' or DEI, this is not the sort of ideology that inspires someone to execute a health insurance executive. Considering right wingers haven't spent the last 30 odd years railing against healthcare industries, I fail to see how these other views are related to this particular murder. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: Be very cautious of what you write and how you write it
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.
"Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We base articles on what sources state, not court rulings" @Cortador Are you being sarcastic or is that a serious comment? And if you're being serious, are you sure that's not nonsense? Also, you do realise how your two sentences are an absurd non-sequitur, don't you? What has "Wikipedia not being a court of law" got to do with not including court rulings in articles? In every western judiciary, court reports (i.e. the scheduling and outcomes of cases) are published in the public domain (and usually available online in perpetuity). So are you seriously claiming that if an article was to include a person's criminal conviction, an online court report from the actual court (published under a .gov domain) would not be a valid source, but a third party news website citing the court report would be valid? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Court rulings are primary sources. If you want to include information in an article, it needs to be reported on by a secondary sources. If there's no secondary sources, the ruling isn't worth including. That is basic Wikipedia sourcing. Cortador (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An academic article on this (future) legal case would be a secondary source, not a primary one. I doubt anyone will conduct scientific experiments on the court documents, but hey, you never know. Cortador (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no @Cortador. You've dropped your banana skin and stepped on it yourself. My point, which I made clearly, is that academic and scientific writing disparages anything other than peer-reviewed primary literature as reference material. If you ever get go to university you'll discover that students are strongly discouraged from using textbooks as source material, and are trained to focus on reading original, primary, peer-reviewed literature. I should perhaps clarify for you that in this sense, 'literature' just means written material, not Jane Austen novels. Scientific papers are literature. Post-graduates and academics will rarely if ever cite a secondary source. And of course nobody, not even first year students, will ever cite a Wikipedia article. Nice try at insulting me - but it back-fired I am sorry to tell you. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't at university here, we are on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't consider peer-reviewed academic articles on court cases primary sources, it considers them secondary sources. The court documents themselves would be the primary sources in that case.
That is why I said it was a difference between academia/science and Wikipedia. This is your second message where you're flogging a dead horse. You were trying to be smart with your ridiculous remark "I doubt anyone will conduct scientific experiments on the court documents, but hey, you never know". A very poor deliberate misconstrual of my statement. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You admitted above that you weren't aware of this difference until a few hours ago, despite working on this article. I hope you understand that it is important to know how Wikipedia treats sources.
You just insist on having the last word don't you? Don't patronise me. I'm insulting nobody, but there is one editor trying to be clever and mock me but failing at every turn. And another telling me I'm wrong when in fact he missed a double negative. How about you take a break? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking you to take a break because civility is essential on Wikipedia. Being rude is counterproductive, and it is expected that editors assume good faith of others. It is common for editors to get emotionally invested in a dispute, and when people get too emotionally invested, they often become uncivil and disruptive. The best way to prevent that from happening is to take a break to clear your head, and that is what I'm asking you to do now. I'll step away for a bit too, and we can come back with a clear head and a focus on working together. Bowler the Carmine | talk23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm angry but I really don't accept I'm being uncivil. I'm telling one editor to stop attempting to mock me by deliberate miscontrual of my comments, and I'm asking another to notice that the mistake in comprehension of a question/answer was his, not mine. Quote my "rudeness" back to me please? Where is it? Stridency isn't rudeness. Defending myself isn't rudeness. This is bear-baiting and you insist on telling me to step away and calm down. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never going to go and read those WP:NOTES - so could you tell me @Kingturtle, is it really the case that an article cannot state "John Doe was charged with homicide in Any Court in Any City on DD/MM/YYYY"? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it is allowed to state in articles that person X was charged with offence Y. I guess in your OP you did say editors should consider not doing this - which means it is acceptable with due consideration. Sometimes I wonder if my time spent on WP is actually just a weird hallucination or dream that's only happening in an upside down part of my unconscious mind. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked pages have everything you need to know. It is expected that all contributors to Wikipedia familiarize themselves with relevant policies and guidelines, which in this case Kingturtle linked above. Bowler the Carmine | talk23:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you weighing in here? I'm asking an other editor who accused me of being in error to admit his own mistake. As to your comment on my talk page - I'm the person here who is being told I'm wrong when I'm right, who's facing ludicrous deliberate misconstruals by editor 2, and being "warned" by you for being abusive when there are three of you piling in on me. My comments here may be about the guidelines but don't contravene the guidelines, and I'm not making any edits to which those guidelines are relevant. I'm discussing the guidelines and I'm expressing my disapproval of their ridiculous quality standards. And for that reason I have no interest in them and no interest in making any edits that involve them. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right - is this in fact your mistake? Are you going to comment or just stay silent? My question wasn't a trick to catch you out on a double-negative Q&A, which (and correct me if I am wrong) you missed? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's such sound advice and it is so interesting that you said that - it's exactly what @Bowler the Carmine has been repeating over and over. I've never communicated with you before now @ZimZalaBim, but strangely in the last few hours I know I've seen your name crop up several times. I keep getting told to stop being rude and combative and uncivil, but I can't help wonder why @Kingturtle does not simply respond to tell me again that it was I who made the mistake - which would very much close the matter off. Anyway, I need to get some sleep. We're in different time zones. I'm not in California. I'm not walking away - I'm going to bed. But feel free to continue to tell me to walk away or take a breath or re-read what it says or threaten me with sanctions. I'll pick this up in the morning, when I guess Californian folks will all be in bed. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
Please add the fake ID name used by the perpetrator, "Mark Rosario"
Please change
“
He checked into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on November 24 with a fake New Jersey identification card and paid in cash.
”
to
He checked into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on November 24 with a fake New Jersey identification card saying "Mark Rosario", and paid in cash.
{{cite news |url= https://www.nbcnewyork.com/manhattan/photos-fake-id-gun-luigi-mangione-person-interest-united-healthcare-ceo/6054152/ |title= Photos: Fake ID, gun allegedly found on Luigi Mangione, person of interest in CEO killing |author1= Jonathan Dienst |author2= Tom Winter |date= 9 December 2024 |publisher= NBC 4 New York }}
This is the first I've heard of an accomplice. I thought Luigi acted alone, now you're suggesting this Mark person was somehow involved too? Are you sure the name is Mark, and not Mario? Maybe a twin brother? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional source provided below, which explicitly connects the name to the ID provided at the hostel, instead of being implied in the NBC source. The NBC source howver provides a photo of the fake ID, so both sources should be added to the modified statement.
{{cite news |url= https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1410947/luigi-mangione-arrested-at-mcdonalds-how-police-found-person-of-interest-in-unitedhealthcare-ceo-death |title= Luigi Mangione Arrested at McDonald's: How Police Found Person of Interest in UnitedHealthcare CEO Death |author= Olivia Evans |date= 9 December 2024 |publisher= E! Online |work= E! News |via= E! Networks |id= 1410947 }}
Can some give me legitimate reasons why "UnitedHealth Group investor meeting begins" and "UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty cancels the rest of the investor meeting" belong in the timeline? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I placed them there because they give context to what Thompson was planning for his day to look like. I think they provide helpful background information but am not wedded to those items at the hip. Maximilian775 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I disagree completely with ZimZalaBim. Of course the timeline needs to provide the entire context of the events as opposed to just the minutes-long window of the killing itself. It speaks to what the victim was planning on doing that morning, and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors. It strikes me as a little silly to say that the perpetrator getting coffee is a crucial detail critical to the shooting, but an update on the event the victim was heading to was not. The investor meeting is covered by reputable sources and mentioned as a significant event that occurred in the temporal proximity of the shooting. I think that this should be put back into the article until there is clear consensus for removal, and strongly oppose any unilateral effort to take it out. FlipandFlopped ツ18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors" - this is all an opinion, not a fact. The fact there was an investor meeting that brought Thompson to NYC is clearly mentioned in the article. The start and stop time of the meeting itself doesn't need to be detailed in a timeline of events. Once Thompson was shot, those activities are no longer part of the timeline of directly related events. --ZimZalaBimtalk18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ZimZalaBim"Once Thompson was shot, those activities are no longer part of the timeline of directly related events" respectfully, I simply disagree with this. Immediate consequences of a shooting are relevant, and the cancellation of the event he was set to speak at is an immediate consequence. In other words, if someone is assassinated en route to something, the subsequent cancellation of that event immediately after the shooting is critical to understanding the timeline of events. If a famous singer was shot at 9:15pm en route to a concert that was set to start at 10:00pm, you don't think mentioning "9:55 pm, Concert is officially cancelled" is a relevant detail in that scenario? Analogous. FlipandFlopped ツ18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It speaks to what the victim was planning on doing that morning, and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors." <----this is exactly why it shouldn't be included. There is no evidence that one of the shooter's motives was to have the meeting be canceled. It is speculative and there for has no place in the timeline. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by his manifesto and even his twitter content I wouldnt necessarily say he was right wing - rather syncretic, supporting left AND right wing ideas. Iska-Germany (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources universally describe him as right-wing or anti-modern/capitalist reactionary. (Yes, they exist, and the Unabomber was widely considered to be one.)
Earlier this year, Mangione shared a poston his X account of another user praising Musk for his “commitment to long-term civilization success.” It referenced a post by Musk from March this year where he claimed he was “in a battle to the death with the anti-civilizational woke mind virus.”... Other posts Mangione shared lamented “wokeism” in society, and he also responded to one post that claimed God had been replaced by people “worshipping at the DEI shrine, using made-up pronouns like religious mantras and firing professors for saying men can’t get pregnant.”... In response, Mangione shared a link to an article from the Daily Telegraph newspaper in the UK which railed against an anti-hate crime law introduced in Scotland in 2021.
Mangione had not updated his Goodreads account recently, but toward the beginning of the year, he did add Infinite Jest, Atlas Shrugged, and American Prometheus (the biography that Oppenheimer was based on) to his “Want to Read” list... His favorites list is full of the kind of nonfiction favorites that right-leaning libertarian types love to peddle.
The news that UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, Brian Thompson, had been killed sent an immediate shockwave across America, prompting quick assumptions about the assassin’s motive. Early chatter on platforms such as BlueSky speculated that the shooter, who is now suspected to be “tech whiz” and UPenn graduate Luigi Mangione, might be some kind of anti-capitalist folk hero. As details emerged, these hypotheses began to fall apart. Mangione, who was taken into custody Monday, was skeptical of “woke” culture, followed several right-libertarian figures online — and curated a GoodReads list heavy on Silicon Valley self-help, futurism, psychedelics and advice on treating chronic back pain... He gravitated toward “traditionalism,” a term gaining traction in certain media spaces as shorthand for a certain right-tinged longing: for older aesthetics, more formal courtship rituals, seemingly more authentic ways of life. Thinkpieces abound about this niche of right-coded thought, which seeks permanence and depth beyond what the digital present seems to offer.
In April, he posted that “modern Japanese urban environment is an evolutionary mismatch for the human animal. The solution to falling birthdates isn’t immigration. It’s cultural.” He reshared another video from June of Republican megadonor Peter Thiel talking about people with Asperger’s running start-ups. He reposted a pseudo-motivational quote, “Netflix, door dash, and true crime podcasts have stolen more dreams than failure ever will.” And he reposted several messages railing against “wokeism.”
There's also a long tradition of anti-capitalist conservatism. The vast majority of both conservative and liberal sources describe him as right-wing and opposed to liberal modernity. Need it be reminded: the reactionary German political figure Otto von Bismarck introduced universal healthcare. None of this is new. The Unabomber, who he apparently admired, was also in many ways a reactionary or conservative political figure despite also supporting environmentalism and opposing modern capitalism. His political beliefs deserve mention in the article... seeing as this is widely regarded as a political killing and he's the charged suspect. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41 While this is all true, most of these sources use circumstancial evidence. Books that 'libertarians like to peddle' for example. Me personally I dont think things such as that are enough to class one as right wing.
On top of that more traditionalist viewpoints/anti-wokeism are also not limited to the right wing and is seen under both left and right (A good example would be the german BSW, which is socially right and economically left)
Statements regarding the Unabomber seem to see him as having good idea, but having failed to act in a good way, the unabomber being a great example of a person similar to left wing which both denied his position in the left and had many positions that werent leftist. In fact the Unabomber is also partially popular under the right aswell, despite being ideologically closer to the anarchist left. Despite his complaints he seemingly classified the Unabomber as good and rates the manifesto positively and in his review presents clear anti-capitalist sentiment.
Citing Otto von Bismarck is also not exactly a good example, as he introduced legislation as appeasement, not because he believed in it - he wanted to destroy workers movements. He believed that the left was a plague and was both socially and economically right.
I would also at the end like to note that being socially conservative but economically left wing makes you not necessarily right wing but again rather syncretic.
Classing Magione therefore as right wing is in my opinion misrepresenting many views he had. At least he should be referred to as socially right but economically left. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the added wording directly stated he was right-wing. It said he had interest in libertarian, tech community "anti-woke centrists/center-right" people, traditionalist, reactionary, and conservative thinkers who opposed modern liberal modernity and often advocated violent resistance to it. None of that is disputed by anyone..
What economically left-wing views is he confirmed to have expressed? It's very possible, for instance, that he supported a totally free-market economic system and saw government-private insurance regulations & their lobbying (private-public) against "free market"'as the reason for America's poor standard of healthcare. (Not an uncommon position among the crowds that he followed.)
The phrasing I used states that he expressed concern over the decline of Christianity and secularism, birth rates, modern industrial society, wokeism, and various other personal bugbears. His interest in the Unabomber, topics surrounding Asperger's Syndrome, and hobbies also deserve mention.
I'm fine with moving it into another section but to not list his political views in an article about an apparent political kills strains all sense of credibility. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41 You werent the one who added the part claiming he has been reffered to as right wing - it seems to have already been removed.
I believe due to the current uncertainty of the actual political views of Magione we cannot or shouldnt write statements speculating or citing speculation, as his positions as published seem to be very broad. His quote 'these parasites had it coming' could very much for one refer to CEOs or businessmen.
I reinstated it. It's pretty astonishing that many here apparently seem to believe that right-wing individuals can't hold gripes against insurance companies. Much of early conservatism in Europe was against capitalism.
The New York Times, Washington Post, and conservative websites like National Review have also noted his interest in traditionalist & right-wing libertarian, and reactionary philosophy. It makes sense. The Unabomber (who he repeatedly cited online and in real life) was also a right-wing figure who is often misinterpreted as a communist or left-anarchist revolutionary. Why should we not include the political beliefs of the suspect or his interest in the Unabomber? This is the type of article where political views of the suspects are especially important.
I have a feeling that many here (particularly on the left) wanted him to be a communist, socialist, or anarchist, so that is why these cited sources are getting resistance.
@RomanianObserver41 Traditionalist ideals again are not exclusive to the right wing. There are parties today that are considered part of the leftist spectrum yet are socially right.
Its honestly quite an american view to inherently connect social and economic issues to define the sides.
Stalin could be considered right wing if we look at the things that were enough to class Magione as right wing, despite Stalin being a member of the communists in the USSR.
(Support for more traditional views are found with stalin, alongside authoritarianism)
Interestingly enough I do however admit that Stalin is often seen as non-left by various individuals, so the whole right/left spectrum is VERY subjective. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except every political party on Wikipedia has a political position on its respective page. Right and left-wing relate to support for social hierarchy. We can continue this discussion below. I'm going to get an administrator involved (to start a request for comment for me) if this can't be sorted out. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZimZalaBim The problem is those sources that Romanianobserver just showed is that none of those call him right wing, rather pointing out that he followed individuals that were socially right wing. At the same time sources such as his own writings (for example the Unabomber review or the snippets of the Manifesto we have) suggest a strong opposition to business, which again is economically left.
Yahoo is one source that refers to him as 'seemingly leaning right' - calling him right wing outright would be unfitting. Ted Cruz also referred to him as leftist, which almost certainly referred to his economic ideas. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new paragraph would state:
Social profiles of Mangione have suggested interest in right-wing thought forms of violent resistance, including the Unabomber, against liberal modernity. He also expressed or reposted concerns about secularization and the decline of Christianity in the Western World, fertility rates, DEI programs, and "wokeism" in society. Other displayed interests included Asperger's Syndrome and Pokémon. In a review of Industrial Society and its Future, a critique of industrial civilization, he described the Unabomber as "rightfully imprisoned" while also saying, "'Violence never solved anything' is a statement uttered by cowards and predators". In April, he wrote: "Horror vacui (nature abhors a vacuum)" in relation to secularism and secularization, and posted in May 2024 an essay written in high school titled How Christianity Prospered by Appealing to the Lower Classes of Ancient Rome thatsuggested the religion's superiority over paganism.
All of this warrants mention. It's well-sourced, widely covered in dozens of news articles, and confirmed politicsl opinions of the suspect. I cannot imagine why someone would not want to include the vast majority of this into the article. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all speculative WP:SYNTH. He could have "interst" in all kinds of things...that doesn't necessarily mean those interests are connected to the shooting. We aren't here to create a profile of him as a person, but to summarize sourced facts appropraite for an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBimtalk16:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP: SYNTH (after reading it) to report other newspapers and online websites have paid significant attention to all of these things. The suspect's political views are clearly important surrounding what is likely to be a political killing. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he "reposted concerns about secularization and the decline of Christianity in the Western World, fertility rates, DEI programs, and "wokeism" in society" is mentioned in hundreds of articles. That link has no apparent relation to the suggested phrasing. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41 Looking at the section especially referring to his review of Unabomber seems to ignore how he expressed very (economically) left opinions in his review, rather focusing on his statements supporting violence and almost seems written as if he opposed the Umabomber outright, when in his review he seemingly criticized that the Unabomber wasnt accurate enough in his attacks.
As said both the articles and the writing seem very speculative and probably shouldnt be in the article until there is a clearer picture. He could very much follow people described as right wing, while not supporting all their positions. On the other hand there are also leftists who have been described as right wing, which further adds to the problem of speculating on peoples opinions based on a handful of tweets and seemingly wildly varying opinions. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can just not list him as right-wing and note the political positions he has taken on social med. We're not speculating about his views if we're reporting what he has said. It's confirmed information. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41 Correct. What I referred to as speculation was the label right-wing
The rest is mostly fine (although to me the unabomber section still seems weirdly written - as if he opposed his writings outright, which he didnt in the review) Iska-Germany (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this issue in a talk section up top but got zero feedback.
Please see Jeffrey Sonnenfeld's and Steven Tian's piece in Yale Insights, which should be cited in main article.[3] They talk about a "unholy alliance" between populists on the far-left and far-right, where both extremes are borrowing each other's ideas. This is consistent with recent political science research indicating that anti-elite sentiment trumps traditionally partisan ideologies these days (see[4])
And while I'm not personally a reliable source and so won't link my own essays, I have been researching American populism for over a year now and can vouch for the 2 sources linked above. The extremes on the right (in the MAGA movement) and the extremes on the left (say, the Bernie Sanders crowd) have more common ground with each other than the moderates in their own parties. It's here where you find a mix of both anti-woke and anti-corporate views, perhaps typified by commentators like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan, who are quite hard to pin down ideologically.
With this in mind, it's entirely misleading to link suspect's "right wing" views to this particular murder. Suspect was not hearing rhetoric against the health insurance industry from the right-wing media -this is entirely the domain of the left. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i agree, i'd consider his politics syncretic. he followed right-wing and far-right figures and was anti-secularization and anti-"DEI", yet was critical of trump and the republican party.
he followed AOC, and was critical of billionaires and corporations, and by extension, likely american capitalism as well, but this doesn't necessarily mean he was critical of capitalism itself. i'd consider his politics syncretic, center-libertarian or anarchist instead of left or right, although i would say more influenced by right-wing views than those of the left.
i think that the part of his beliefs in the main section, such as "suggesting interest in anti-liberal thought, as well as forms of violent resistance..." should be kept, although a section should be added clarifying his beliefs were more in common with those of libertarians and some anarchists than those of an average american online conservative, at least from my point of view.
lastly, i'd definitely add how the event that apparently radicalized him was his chronic back pain resulting from a severe spinal injury. this event radicalizing him and leading to this event apparently has been confirmed by multiple sources personally knowing him, including his family and former roommates/friends. Teluguwaifu (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm talking to a wall here -the fact that he had hybrid views is entirely consistent with recent trends in American politics. We live in an age of mass variety, and consumers like to mix their political views as much as their Starbucks orders or the genres they watch on Netflix. To say he held some right-wing views does not imply this particular murder was motivated by right-wing ideology.
The ideas that motivate political violence have origins, and only one side of American politics has spent the last 30 odd years attacking the health insurance industry, and it isn't the right. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but this murder was specific, and had nothing to do with wokeness or DEI. The far-right activist Richard Spencer, for example, is notorious because of his views on race. The fact that he has some left-wing ideas about the economy and consumerism isn't why he's notable. I 100% agree with the syncretic blend of populism as I described above, but not sure what all of Mangione's political views have to do with this particular killing. Political violence against economic elites is inherently far-left. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While more remains to be seen, Mangione's views are classic far right and only unreliable, highly partisan right-wing sources such as the NY Post claim otherwise. And the far right frequently attacks the elites. Look at the campaigns against George Soros, AARP, Budweiser and Disney. TFD (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also what are you on about? Budweiser is "elite"? In what universe? It is known is cheap, bottom-of-the-barrel beer. And of course that has literally nothing to do with this article whatsoever, nor do his supposed political views of which little is concretely known. Your leftist bias is showing. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed two sentences from the lead section about "Mangione's social media profiles." Only a small portion of sources deal with this material and it seems unclear to me that what was on his Goodreads profile is among the most important elements on this case. Certainly, some of this might be due weight for the body of the article, but inclusion in the lead is a separate discussion. The lead section should stick to the core elements on the topic. When it doubt, we should wait and see what sources develop. Neutralitytalk18:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it remains to be seen if Mangione has ever written anything about UnitedHealtcare being too woke or needing to get rid of its DEI department, but as it stands right now, his manifesto was very far-left in rhetoric. I suppose some political commentators are trying to dig up everything this guy's ever said about politics and link it to this murder, but this was very specific. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of this in the lead is so obviously for bad-faith reasons, an attempt to split what has been a unified public opinion. It can be included and expanded on wherever else, but this is at least out of place in the lead. Ironmatic1 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly, we need to be cautious about simply restating what news sources happened to find on his social media accounts. We are an encyclopedia and it is ok for us to have higher standards and wait and see if such content becomes specifically and directly relevant to his actions. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a good approach here. --ZimZalaBimtalk23:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The words on the bullets are entered wrong in the article. The police reported that the bullets said "deny defend and depose" whereas the wiki says they read differently which is false. This can be verified by reading through the copious amounts of news articles published this past week. 71.90.110.159 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: According to the NBC News source in that section there were two different reports, a second correcting the first (replacing "defend" with "delay"). I have added a sentence explaining this, and also added a quote of the relevant statement from the cited article to the citation. abcasada (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it looks like there's some editing going on involving the infobox image; for a while, it had been a still image of right before the first shot but it was changed today to be the full CCTV video (though without the caption being changed. I've reverted it back to the still, as that is what appeared to me to be the consensus among many editing the page over the last few days. I think that the video has value; but it shouldn't be the infobox media. It should be further down in the article. We rarely see videos in infoboxes. September 11 attacks has still images, with videos of the attacks further down.
include the video further down in the article. People will be searching for it anyway and it’s better that it could be viewed on a secure site like this 73.210.30.217 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until there is information from a legitimate source that there is a link between his back issues and his motive, it is merely speculation and has no place in this article. This article is not a place to post hunches and ideas. It doesn't matter to this article that he had back issues or surgery UNLESS it is connected directly to the killing or to the motives of the killing. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Social media section currently has the sentence “ His Goodreads account flagged six books related to chronic back pain and spinal surgery.” Should that sentence be deleted as well?
I don’t think we should say it’s his motive but enough sources are making a point of reporting it to warrant notability for the article, I’d argue Snokalok (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be notable for a news story trying to get ratings, but it isn't notable for an encyclopedia article about a murder. To be included in a Wikipedia article, it needs to have a legitimate link to the motives of the accused. For example, personal writings about how he got screwed by his health insurance involving his back pain or surgery. Or, becoming addicted to pain medications because of the back pain, and being high on pain meds when he planned and performed the crime. Or, his defense lawyer uses the back pain as some sort of reason for the crime committed. In those instances, there would be a direct link. Just saying he had back pain and surgery, that by itself is not encyclopedic in an article about the crime. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I'm concerned that the article stated that he was influenced by "reactionary right wing thinkers". Attributed or not, if you think that is a legitimate link to the motives of the accused, then him having medical issue would also be legitimate (I think neither of them is). Loaded descriptions like "reactionary right wing" should not be added without it being something widely considered to be true (attribution to a single source is unacceptable), and certainly not when it is unknown as to his motives, nor his guilt proven. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we are permitted to quote brief excerpts of copyrighted material if there is no easy alternative, we cannot reproduce sources in their entirety. It's not the length of the quote that's the issue, it's how much of the source was reproduced. A few hundred words from a book-length work isn't as big of an issue, but including the manifesto in its entirety, even though it's shorter than some blockquotes here, is absolutely out of the question. Bowler the Carmine | talk21:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP:COPYRIGHT, or any other wiki policy, limit the percentage of a copyrighted text work that can be included? Nowhere. No such policy exists. There is no policy which prevents us from including a 250-word passage, obviously unique and not reproduceable from free material. There is no policy which limits the percentage of a text work that can be included. Until such time as you can convince your fellow editors to accept such a policy, pleaseself-revert. And stop trying to bully me with nonsense like this. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is one of the policies that prevents us from including a 250-word passage. It says "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other primary source material. In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length."
I have removed the manifesto text from the citations section. It should never appear there. That isn't what citations are for. The full text should not appear in the article. If anything, create an external link to the URL in the External Links section. However, based on Klippenstein's history, we need to verify that the text he has is indeed the legit text. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we create a separate article for Luigi mangione?
since he was arrested, many news reports have covered mangione extensively and have made him recognizable among the general public, also other notable assassins like Thomas crooks and Ryan routh have gotten separate articles so should we not give mangione a separate article? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.”
The Timeline section currently refers to him as Suspect. Should we use "assailant" there instead for the whole thing, for only the shooting, or not at all? guninvalid (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would think it is best to avoid given that there are people named Mark Rosario in the US. Granted, I prefer caution in these situations. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what if he shared content praising Thiel and Musk. As far as we know, this has nothing at all to do with any motive or action by the accused. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the sentences regarding “tech-bro” takes, mental health, ancient history, and his reposts of the decline of Christianity. Those are not even tangentially related to motive either. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other way that I've heard it described is that Mangione's views are not ideologically consistent. He's more politically erratic than anything, or not ideologically motivated. guninvalid (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the name of the journalist is does not have prominence relative to other facts that may be added to the lead and making him the third named person to appear in the article is bizarre and editorially unjustified. Get consensus for this addition whoever is doing it. —Alalch E.00:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But now it is in the passive voice. "The full text of the manifesto was published later." Does it even need to be in the lead? If so, fix the passive voice. If not, we can put it elsewhere. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full text of the manifesto was published later.
I did not write this. I wrote
The manifesto criticizes healthcare companies for prioritizing profits over patient care.
See section below regarding the term "manifesto." A manifesto is by definition, a published document. It may be convenient to call it that, but its a heavily loaded term. At this time it's more accurate to call it Mangione's "handwritten document" which, if you must add, "has been characterized as a "manifesto."842U (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the lead section: "The killing has been characterized by many social media users as deserved or justified" has been changed to "The killing has been characterized by many as deserved or justified".
I can't see any content in the main body of the article which states that many individuals not posting on social media have said the killing was deserved or justified. If they are not on social media, who are they?
Even the lecturer in social work at a University who mentioned the deaths of 68,000 Americans who he said needlessly die each year posted his comments on social media, which was subsequently reported in a newspaper. But this lecturer posting on social media did not state the killing was justified. Apart from social media users, who are the many other people who have said the killing was deserved or justified? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have sources confirmed that there is one and only one suspect, and that others have been ruled out? Do we have confirmation that it is appropriate to refer to Mangione as "the" suspect rather than just "a" suspect or "the main" suspect? guninvalid (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too early to say, but all of the sourcing is focused on Mangione, who has been arrested and charged. This means that there is little need to suggest that other people may be involved, when investigators have not suggested this.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noticing a small edit skirmish between @Natmazz and @ReferenceMan over date formats. MOS:DATEFORMAT currently reads that years can be omitted if there is no risk of ambiguity. Personally, I think it's better to keep the years; certainly someone reading right now about it already knowing about the incident wouldn't be confused, but a new reader or someone reading about this incident three years from now might. I think that constitutes "risk of ambiguity". guninvalid (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's why I've been adding the years. Thinking down the line and the fact that it is almost 2025. I'm sure there will be things to add about this case come the new year so just thinking ahead. Natmazz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Category:Incel-related violence because that is not factual, it is speculative. There is no place at all anywhere in this article for Incel-related text, at least not until we hear it from the suspect, or there is a legal history involving such behavior, or it comes up in the trial, etc. We need legit evidence on such a claim, not just true-crime hype or roommates telling stories. Kingturtle = (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024 (2)
The title of this article is Killing of Brian Thompson, not Assassination of Brian Thompson. For that to ever change, according to Wikipedia policy (WP:Assassination), this incident would have "to have a single commonly recognized common name in reliable sources." It goes on: "Even if a death appears to be an assassination, the article title should not use the term assassination unless that term is part of the established common name."
So, until then please use the word killer, not assassin. Please do not put the word assassin or assignation in text or descriptions or in categories or see alsos.
The word may come up when newsworthy people mention the word and that is okay to include, as long as this article itself is not suggesting it was an assassination. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Flirting" was not flirting - character assassination or stupid fill-in hypothesis.
I've seen multiple news sources say "flirting" -- not disputing your point but there are reputable sources saying that he was flirting, not just randos on Twitter or Reddit. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you must include the term "flirting" then describe the sourcing accurately. At this juncture immaterial that it was or wasn't flirting: but if it is included, the article should relay that "initial reports: characterized it as an act of flirting.842U (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the term "manifesto" is premature, ill-fitting, hyperbolic and inappropriate -- and hence should be avoided in the absence of a seriously bonafide source. A manifesto is by definition a document that has been published. Mangione was found with handwritten notes. It is unnecessary and damaging to describe it otherwise -- until such time as a bonafide source of some expertise says otherwise. 842U (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione?
Sorry for not being clear- I'm not arguing for a separate article, just pointing out the existence of the draft as a counter to the idea it is "not being allowed". 331dot (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your answers. I don't have an opinion in the matter. I was more interested in the process. "Wikipedia is not allowing" makes it sound like something or someone above us made the decision, when in actuality, it was wikipedians who made the decision. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - there is a group of wikipedia editors making the decision. I suppose that editors can contribute to/improve the Draft:Luigi Mangione article until it is deemed acceptable to publish.
In the lead, the second paragraph currently reads:
"Thompson's death received reactions of online contempt and mockery from many Americans towards him and UnitedHealth Group. More broadly, many Americans criticized the U.S. healthcare system. Many social media users characterized the killing as deserved or justified; these attitudes relate to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry at large – primarily their strategies to deny coverage to clients. In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients who were denied healthcare."
I wish to advocate for a change to this, with the reasons following on:
"Following Thompson's death, there was a significant social media reaction that characterized the killing as deserved or justifiable; these attitudes related to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry in general - in particular their strategies to reject clients' claims on their healthcare insurance policies. Comparisons were made between the harm done to Thompson and the harm caused to citizens who were denied financial support to access healthcare."
The changes are not terribly significant or controversial. There will be editors who will argue about the inclusion of much of this paragraph in the first place - and in fact I would be one of those. But given it appears just now in the way quoted, I'm simply hoping to improve on what is there and certainly not to condone or justify it. I've dropped the first sentence and merged the sense of it into the second sentence. I felt the phrase "[his] death received online reactions of contempt..." could have been misconstrued as people reacting in the "normal" way of expressing contempt/disgust that a civilian was murdered. I've left one instance of 'clients' as was, and changed the second instance to 'citizens'. While I'm sure most/all readers 'get it', the word 'client' sounds a bit 'corporate' and it's important to make clear that the outcry was about harm to real people/members of the public/sick folk. I think 'citizens' conveys that better than 'clients'. I've tinkered round the edges of "denied healthcare" - it's not a big deal, but for the sake of adding a few words it becomes clearer that it isn't so much that citizens were denied healthcare (because the resources are all there, ready and waiting to assist patients) but were denied the financial support (that they expected from their insurer) to pay for/access what I gather is an excellent healthcare system (at the point of treatment). In other words, I simply wanted to make it clear that the issue isn't' with the medical personnel or physical infrastructure - it is about affordability and patients being let-down by their insurance policies. I've changed a couple of other small things: instead of "many social media users" I suggest "significant" - both terms provide only loose definitions of the scale, but I think 'significant' is less problematic than 'many'. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus before taking any actions and doing so -
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skynxnex (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Done, I have bold added it. If it's challenged, then this discussion can be reopened. EF5 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Additional information needed Please provide sources for both of these claims 
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Done added source from CNN. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
