Talk:Luigi Mangione/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect or article?

Too early to tell, but an article on him may be written on him in the future just because of the "popularity" of the happening. Alexysun (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think an article is likely (if he is the perp and is convincted) in the future but as of now it's way to soon.★Trekker (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione?

Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione?

A page for Dylann Roof was created on June 18, 2015, the day after the Charleston Church Shooting and his arrest.

As of today, Wikipedia is not allowing the creation of a Luigi Mangione page, but is instead diverting to the Killing of Brian Thompson page. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

To avoid duplication, I'd suggest you pick a single forum for your discussion. Since someone has replied to you at Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson, I suggest you confine the discussion there. 331dot (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As I stated over on the Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson talk page, I'm a bit surprised that Mangione doesn't have his own article, considering Thomas Matthew Crooks, who is only notable because of the failed Trump assassination attempt, has one. Some1 (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Dylann Roof article should not have been created at that time per WP:PERPETRATOR. It is possible that a Luigi Mangione page could be created in the future but per the policy, this would be when the coverage is not contemporaneous and when there is an actual conviction. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming Luigi is indeed the perpetrator, he may deserve an article for the second reason given in WP:PERPETRATOR, which is "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Mangione's motivations have been a large talking point amongst many articles and sources. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this article being blanked on account of an uncompleted deletion discussion about a different draft article?

This doesn't make any sense. -- 71.174.73.210 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Because the subject of this article and the draft article are the same. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's hijacking the process in a confusing way. There's no indication on this article that there is even a deletion discussion ongoing, and WP:MfD is the wrong place to discuss deleting an article in mainspace. -- 71.174.73.210 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto

Have any supposed copies of his manifesto met the editorial standards of Wikipedia? Apyrrypa (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What is normally done in instances like this is an external link is found of the text, and we put a link to it in the External Links Section. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that Luigi Mangione is added with one charge of being a terrorist by NYC, perhaps one day we may be able to put either a link containing the full text or rather copy, paste, and quote in full in Wikipedia entry---of course Luigi's 3-pg manifesto is much shorter than Unabomber's book... 2607:F470:34:2101:1822:98B5:5F3:E958 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep this article for now, pending new developments

Just saw this independent article on the suspect, and of course I do not immediately recommend DELETE for the sake of deletion, or a blank approval for KEEP for the sake of keeping...because we don't lack such precedents as well as similar cases as to whether to create a separate article on a suspect---

Some raised the Dylann Roof's case, but of course that was back in 2015, so probably the rules back then at Wikipedia were much more lenient than now.

On not creating a separate article on suspect, well, the 2022 U. of Idaho killings(2022 University of Idaho killings#Accused) can give us some insights---one whole section of the talk really focused on whether to create an entry for Bryan Kohberger, but of course his case dragged on ever since Jan 2023 when he was extradited to Idaho from Pennsylvania. In that case, of course Bryan waived his right to the extradition, and did not choose to fight it like Luigi is doing now.

On infamous cases throughout the history, one could be like Zodiac Killer(Zodiac Killer), all the list of suspects(including one Arthur Leigh Allen) is within a separate article, but a section itself branching out from the main entry, therefore no separate articles on any of those suspects; Another could be like D. B. Cooper(D. B. Cooper)---though the list of suspects is much longer, but since nobody is identified, so no separate articles on any of them, but since the case is very infamous, so the case stands despite no identified suspect as we speak(of course there're rumors throughout the years claiming such and such a person is the suspect for real, and some of them still alive).

Outside of this article, similar discussions on whether to create a separate article or a brand new entry could be seen in, say, Russian Invasion of Ukraine, because sometimes we don't know whether it's worth creating a whole new article for a battle, a campaign, or an offensive, or whether to even rename them.

Therefore, back to Luigi Mangione's article, I'd say keep it for now, but we can wait for another year or two to decide its fate...no need to rush now, any more than NY Giants releasing Daniel Jones in a hurry and letting Saquon Barkley go and this and that(and we can see what happens to Giants now)... Bf0325 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I found this article very useful. [[Comfr (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)]]

I believe this article on Mangione is just a stretched out summarization for the sake of having an article of the suspect. Everything is already summarized on the main article and a majority of it seems copied and pasted as, again, another reason to have a main article of Mangione.

The reason D.B. Cooper is a separate article is because Cooper's alias is known for his evasion of law enforcement than the incident of him hijacking the aircraft, though this can be debated on.

There has also been a comparison to have this article in the way Dylann Roof had been during the Charleston church shooting. I think it's an odd comparison as Mangione targeted one person in response to his anger with the healthcare system, and Roof targeting people of color in response to his White supremacy. I don't think this justifies a separate article. Vibrioidxire (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess you didn't elaborate on whether Luigi Mangione should follow Bryan Kohberger's suit despite I mentioned that I noticed such discussion under that case's Talk(Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings#We should immediately remove the name of accused and section about him)... Bf0325 (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

History merge

My draft Draft:Luigi Mangione was copied and paste into this article, and because of that I feel like there should be a history merge. PopularGames (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:I agree. A history merge would be a sensible and appropriate move. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

A history merge is not appropriate as there are WP:Parallel histories. The copy from the draft space is already properly attributed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Father dying when he was 11

Regarding this edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Luigi_Mangione&diff=1263655380&oldid=1263655227 Luigi’s father, Louis Mangione, is not dead. The source talks about Nicholas Mangione’s father dying when Nicholas was 11. Nicholas is Luigi’s grandfather. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, there was very briefly a mix-up due to some unclearly worded content being copied over from the draft. —Alalch E. 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

An article for Luigi Mangione

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.

---

I believe there should be an article created. Although the circumstances are not yet clear, Wikipedia is a source that many use when researching topics. With the news lately, there should be an article with more information on Mangione as it will help (mainly students) gather more information on the individual as well as produce their own articles on the topic with accurate information. 2600:4808:4972:3C00:8C6E:8C6:F1D2:C573 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

There's already an article, and it's the one whose talk page you posted this on. If you would like to argue that this article should be kept rather than deleted, please access the Articles for Deletion discussion of this page. It's linked at the top. Also, Wikipedia is not a news source. guninvalid (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

I was wrong. It IS “out of touch” and not “unjust.”

This is for anyone who makes the same mistake I did and wants to correct the pre-arraignment quote according to the BBC’s reporting. While the BBC reported that he said “unjust,” that is simply not accurate. Hopefully this will save other editors some time. Haydenmyoung (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think one of the refs contains a video. CVDX (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

“Out of touch” is already in the article under the Charges section Wafflefrites (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories?

How is the 286th Pokémon a conspiracy theory? What conspiracy is being considered here? If anything, this would be Cryptographic theories. Kingturtle = (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Eievie who just added that section LaffyTaffer (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I added it because it's part of the public discourse about him. I agree "conspiracy theory" is not the best term. I used that term because other people online used that same term to talk about it, but I agree it's not very accurate. The notion, I guess, is that it's an easter egg he planted before the crime to denote its meaning, in the same vein as engraving words on bullets? Eievie (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's definitely a valid WP:FRINGE theory (read: the countless articles about "286"), but I think it's worded a little authoritatively. If you don't mind, I might try my hand at rewording it to follow WP:EVALFRINGE better later tonight? mooshberry->talk; 04:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, "fringe theory" is a good term for it. And of course you can reword it better if you want — the whole premise of wikipedia is that anyone can XD Eievie (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I think “conspiracy theories” is appropriate wording because that is the phrasing the source uses. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We can note that it's been called a "conspiracy theory". But the definition of conspiracy is that 2 or more people conspire together, and no one's suggesting there's a second person involved in the 286 thing. Eievie (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't have to put everything that is reported into this article. Wikipedia is not a news source or a newspaper. Kingturtle = (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's trivial stuff, it has no lasting significance, and so I've removed it. —Alalch E. 13:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Since this is a currently unfolding story and no one yet knows how it ends, at present I don't think you can say it "has no lasting significance." Eievie (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how the "story" whatever the story is here will end, but the Pokemon thing is trivial, I confidently predict that it will have no lasting significance, and content about it is not fit for purpose in an encyclopedia. It isn't about a fringe thing being fringe as in fringe theory/beliefs, it's that it isn't sufficiently noteworthy and doesn't deepen a reader's understanding of the topic. Also, please see WP:ONUS. —Alalch E. 21:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

FBI poster

Killing of Brian Thompson suspect FBI seeking information poster

Wondering if the FBI poster is worth including in the arrest section for context per "responding to a call from an employee made in response to a customer who recognized Mangione from images of Thompson's alleged killer released by the NYPD"?

I don't think this is a SUSPECT/BLPCRIME issue, but thought to post on the talk page regardless given the contentious nature of such a BLP article. Maybe there is some specific guidelines or policy on using these type of FBI posters for all I know. Naturally it would need to be made clear these are images of the suspect, not Mangione, but is otherwise highly related to his arrest it seems. CNC (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this poster is very relevant, but I believe its inclusion would be better suited to the Killing of Brian Thompson article, to avoid breaking WP:NPOV in a WP:BLP situation, to avoid implying that Luigi is necessarily the person in the photos.

I realize that it could be included in this article with caveats, but to be safe (considering some people won't read the accompanying text) in a BLP situation, I think it's best not to.

Of course others are free to disagree on this assessment, it's definitely a subjective situation. But this guy isn't getting a lot of neutral coverage, so I think it could make a difference to make this distinction.

If the poster is included, I guess it would also allow users to draw their own conclusions by comparing it with his mugshot and other photos, which is always a good thing. CVDX (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if Luigi isn't the person in the poster photos, the fact that someone thought he was and called in a tip on that basis is still a huge part of his story. I would put the poster in the "Arrest" section — he was arrested on that basis. Eievie (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this belongs more on the Killing of Brian Thompson article than this BLP. Some1 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethical Concerns in the Case of Luigi Mangione

Please see the template at the top of this talk page which states: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Luigi Mangione article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. WP:NOTFORUM. Some1 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't help but wonder: at what point do we, as a society, cross the line from just observing a case to actively shaping its outcome with our opinions? When I look at Mangione, I see a man accused of a serious crime, but I also see a media storm that’s creating a narrative around him that might not even have anything to do with the facts. There’s something deeply troubling about how people are elevating him to some kind of folk hero status, especially when we don’t know the full story yet. Are we forgetting the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" simply because his story fits into a larger cultural frustration with the system? It feels like we’re turning a tragedy into entertainment, and that’s dangerous. When I think about the surge in merchandise and donations to his legal defense, it’s hard not to feel that we’ve lost something important in the way we engage with criminal justice. It’s as if his appearance and the way he’s portrayed has become more important than the actual crime he's accused of. It’s fascinating, but it’s also deeply unsettling. Can you imagine the kind of pressure this puts on the legal system? When public opinion leans so heavily in one direction, can we even expect a fair trial? What’s even more fascinating—and perhaps a little concerning—is how his image, particularly as a "handsome" criminal, plays into the larger narrative we’ve created about criminals in society. We’re used to seeing criminals as either villains or tragic heroes, and it seems like Mangione is falling into the latter category. It’s almost like we're romanticizing him, not for what he’s done, but for what he represents. That’s where I get stuck—because while I understand why people might feel an emotional connection to him, it’s important to pause and think: are we making it easier to forget the severity of the charges against him just because we like the idea of him as some kind of rebellious hero? At the end of the day, I think the real ethical dilemma here is whether we’ve lost sight of what justice truly means. It’s easy to get caught up in the drama, the spectacle, and the story. But the truth is, justice isn't about creating heroes or villains—it’s about ensuring fairness and truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. And right now, it feels like the public's narrative is dangerously far from that ideal. GUmball910 (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Fake ID and name

Shouldn't this article identify the identity used by Mangione at the hostel and at the time of his arrest, that found on the New Jersey ID document? The criminal pseudonym and self-identification of this person at the time of the killing of the CEO. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Added the name Mark Rosario to the "Arrest" section. Eievie (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Avoid specious, pop culture references

We should watch for, and avoid, specious references to pop culture. Mangione's first name is Luigi. We should simply leave it at that. There is no reason to make references to Luigi, or other game characters or real people named Luigi. There is nothing wrong, or confusing, about the name Luigi. Adding cultural or pop cultural references does not help improve the article, and should be avoided. Juneau Mike (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This post makes it sound like the page once said something along the lines of:

This page is about Luigi Mangione. For other people named Luigi, see Luigi (given name). For the Mario (franchise) character, see Luigi.

and you removed that. Except that never happened. I'm confused about what issue you're trying to address here. Who suggested the name Luigi was confusing? Eievie (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Perp walk pictures

Is there any way to get the copyright permission necessary to include some of the perp walk pictures? Eievie (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ask a Wikipedia user in NY to take the photo? Trade (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"Luigi Mangione Mugshot.jpg"

Kind reminder that Pennsylvania law explicitly states that mugshots are subject to copyright and thus anyone adding the image back will be delibaretely violating the copyright of the State of Pennsylvania

And yes, people are allowed to remove blatant copyright violations from articles so citing the upload of the photo to Commons does not excuse having it here Trade (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Trade So, is there any appropriate image to use? Lililolol (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Nothing stopping you from contacting his attorney and asking for a freely licensed photo if you want it so badly Trade (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Why do you sound so defensive? Lol Lililolol (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Mangione"

Should the native Italian pronunciation of Mangione (Italian: [manˈdʒoːne]; mahn-jo-ne) be added to the lead section? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 19:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It could maybe be a footnote ({{efn}}) at the bottom, but I don't think it makes sense to include it in the lead section. He's not Italian (or at least, he's not Italian in the way that Italian isn't the main language he speaks, nor a major language he's discussed in). Eievie (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Eievie

what do you mean with "efn"? L.Willms (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

{{efn}} is the template used to create footnotes that are not citation references. Eievie (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

A footnote seems satisfactory. Can I (or someone else) add it? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Eievie (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bis-Serjetà?

I for my part, living in Europe, in Germany with many Italian immigrants, with my basic to middle knowledge of the Italian language, I see an Italian name and word, and pronounce it the standard Italian way. But I don't know how this name would normally be pronounced in North America, where the English language dominates. The original italian pronounciation is clear (to me), but how does this Luigi Mangione himself, his relatives, his class or workmates who live in mainly US-English speaking environment pronounce his name? How do TV and radio speaker in USA and Canada pronounce it? That would help! L.Willms (talk) 17:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The American pronunciation is /luˈiːdʒi ˌmændʒiˈoʊni/ loo-EE-jee MAN-jee-OH-nee; it is already written in the article. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I had originally added the Italian pronunciation at Killing of Brian Thompson when this wasn’t yet an article, and other editors disagreed to include it. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Change image?

Shouldn't the image of Luigi be changed? The photo has a bad resolution and perhaps we could use the mugshot of Luigi? Bcom123 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bcom123 Agreed, particularly since Luigi is only alleged to be the person in this surveillance image. 209.171.85.155 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

People have added the CCTV suspect pictures enough times now that I added a <!-- --> note to remind people not to. Eievie (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally, there are no freely licensed photos of him, so Lililolol (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Editors will have to fill out a "Non-free use rationale" if they upload (copyrighted) images of the mugshot. See this example [1]. Some1 (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There is a free drawing and one in color, if you want to use it. Like I've done before, I've made a drawing we can use until we get a free photo. A few days ago I made one of Gisèle Pelicot and it's still in use. It was on the main page (ITN) on four wikis, including en-wiki, and peaked at 151,705,371 views a couple of days ago (well, Simple English use the pencil version). Do as you please, but using a drawing has been done several times before. Cart (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Cartoon portraits gives reasons why people might oppose a drawing of a BLP subject: not an accurate representation of the subject, amateurish, quality issues, subjective (e.g. people might think the subject has [facial feature] while others might not), inaccurate/not illustrative, Original Research (their own interpretation of what the subject looks like), etc. Some1 (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Way to go to put down an honest contribution. Of course a photo is always best, but a free one is not always available. And per the discussion we had back when we had none of Kim Jong-un, all the articles we have of people before the invention of camera are subject to the same critique. But, very happy if you've managed to find a free photo for this article. Cart (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Signed complaint mangione - arrest photo.jpg

There have been no copyright objections to the file Signed complaint mangione.pdf yet. I was just transcribing it to wikisource ( Luigi Mangione federal complaint.). In that process, I pulled all the images in the PDF. Since the PDF itself is copyright ok, would it follow that this picture from page 9 of that PDF is also ok? We could crop it just to his face, like this:

Signed complaint mangione - arrest photo.jpg

Eievie (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Try adding it to the infobox and see if anyone objects to it due to (any potential) copyright reasons. Some1 (talk) 21:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna We're discussing the copyright status of this picture here. Can you explain your relational for removing it? Specifically, if the copyright isn't what I thought it was, what do you think its copyright status is? Eievie (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I was skeptical about the provenance but it seems that you folks have it under control. Surtsicna (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be ideal if this image could be cropped and saved as a separate file on Commons. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Languages

The Luigi Mangione article, after creation on December 9, has already been translated into 11 languages! ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, days ago when I checked the article, I was surprised 7 different languages were created...so now there's no need to even erase this article...because now you're doing a disservice to all the users! Honestly, Bryan Kohberger would've been very jealous of Luigi now! Bf0325 (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Drawing

@IvanScrooge98: added the drawing to the right to the body of the article. I removed it saying not needed; images should not be decorative per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. IvanScrooge98 reverted and said it's pretty relevant that a figure charged with murder and terrorism is getting portraits of various kind in his honor. If it were labelled as fan art, that's one thing, but the description of the image says The drawing was made as an illustration for a Wikipedia article, so the drawing is not to "honor" Mangione, per se.

What do people think, should this drawing remain on the article or not? Some1 (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear! I certainly did not do it as fan-art!!! It was simply made as a Wikipedia illustration when we didn't have a free photo of him. Please don't use it as something it was not intended for. Also, I've reverted IvanScrooge98's edit where he put my name on the Pelicot page. In articles, such illustrations as these should not mention the artist, it's just tacky. IRL I'm a professional artist, but here I'm only in my capacity as Wikipedian. Please respect that. Now that we have (?) photos, the drawing is just good as backup in case some copyvio should arise, or if the only free photo available is so bad, it's hard to see the subject, like in Klaus Schulze, (an image made by request from Wikipedians). Cart (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I apologize for my edits then. (By the way, lovely portraits. Thanks for uploading them!) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

(There was no need to get so offended to request the image be deleted by the way. I never “insulted” anyone, if anything I liked the work.) ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98, your faulty first assumption was an eye-opener. Where there is one editor thinking that, there will be others. I need to be more careful about what, and how, I draw things here. The deletion stays. Cart (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2024

Please remove that he is suffering from Lyme disease. It is an insignificant detail, and it also reads like a "stigma." Ggiak (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

When someone (allegedly) did a murder around the topic of healthcare, his personal experiences with health problems and treatment thereof is absolutely significant. Eievie (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we add some reference then? CNN refers to "past struggles with health issues including Lyme disease and severe brain fog" Ggiak (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I disabled the edit request because they are for cases where consensus supports the proposal. Plenty of people here could make the change if they believed it to be helpful so all that is required is a discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

GiveSendGo

We cannot use GiveSendGo as a source; it is a primary source. We need to use secondary sources that refer to the GiveSendGo amount. The current article cited is from Dec 24 and says "raised more than $200,000." We will use that until someone finds a newer secondary source with an updated amount. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

Change Luigi Mangione height from 5'10 to 5'11 based on the police report found on this link: https://archive.org/details/mangione12-9-24/mode/1up

Change in Luigi Mangione: 'is an American man' to 'is an American data engineer' Vsd11 (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done changed height.  Not done not changing lead away from American man. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He’s 6’2 (188cm)

He’s 6’2 (188cm) 2A02:8108:368B:2800:1DA:CF74:2335:9A94 (talk) 07:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the relevance of that information? Spifferella (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's extremely relevant 24.12.118.104 (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has to prove relevancy, height is a basic detail included in {{Infobox person}}. However, you do need a citation for that information. Eievie (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The template documentation says "If person was notable for their height, or if height is relevant." --Here2rewrite (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

He isn't 6'2 -his fake ID, his mother's description to the police, and the PA arrest sheet all have him listed as either 5'10 or 5'11. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

NY Post?

I've never seen the Post used as a reliable source on here, except I suppose if it says this:

"Unnamed sources told the New York Post that health insurance companies have pressured prosecutors to make an example out of the suspect in order to prevent copycat incidents or for other reasons."

The terrorism charges filed against Mangione are completely consistent with how NY State law defines terrorism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we split into Trial of Luigi Mangione?

The coverage of the trial seems to be just as contentious as the killing it's adjudicating. Is there enough coverage to warrant a separate article? guninvalid (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The current article is only 3,000 words, so per WP:ARTICLESIZE, there is no justificaiton for a split as it can all fit here conveniently in one place. I get that it would be notable as a standalone article, but this doesn't justify it's creation in itself, unless there is the consensus found for such a split. I'll also note that justification for a split is somewhat irrelevant it seems, if there is a bold split it's simply whether it'll hold at AfD which is possible. Ideally, with this discussion, there will no be no bold split per "Discuss first". CNC (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Article size isn't the only reason to split an article. WP:DUE is also something to consider, and if we're giving undue weight to the trial at the expense of balanced coverage of the subject of this biography then that is a good enough reason to split as well. See WP:CONTENTSPLIT and WP:OOS. All that being said, I don't think we're to the point that I'd split over this yet. But if/when trials commence and we see a big expansion I'd likely recommend it then. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't know yet whether there will be a trial or if he'll take a plea deal. To answer your question, no, there's not enough coverage at the present time to warrant a separate article. Some1 (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

"Christ" image from one pizzeria

There is currently a "Christ"-like image of Mangione in the Luigi_Mangione#In_popular_culture section. Should this image be removed since Twitter/X is currently the source supporting it being on the article right now? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I also don't understand why this image is being kept, clearly going against Wikipedia's Source Code, using tweet as source??? In addition to being unnecessary for the article, after all, there is already a photo of a graffiti demonstrating the "Deny, Defend, Depose", which can already be considered as "popular culture" if you want to consider it that way.

It doesn't make sense to post an edited photo made in AI at a specific pizzeria in his city, as something from "popular culture", in addition to being unnecessarily offensive and demonstrating bias and sympathy of the article towards the individual in question, where it should be an unbiased article. WolfenSkin (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to get mad, the image has just been found to be copyright infringement and is going to be deleted soon anyway. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Well it has been removed from the article for now. I don't think anyone was "get[ting] mad", just it clearly did not pass muster for inclusion on this article in the first place, regardless of "copyright infringement" or not. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I had replied to the wrong user. Should have toned the wording down though, sorry. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Polling

Mb2437, since you've been repeatedly copy and pasting and duplicating the polling information from Killing of Brian Thompson to this article, a biography of a living person (which has higher inclusion standards), please note that some of the polls don't explicitly ask about "Mangione", they ask about the "killer". At this point in the case, he's presumed innocent of the killing. So if these opinion polls are careful to avoid explicitly naming him, then they don't belong in this article--only polls that explicitly name him do. Also note this article is about the person (Luigi Mangione, a WP:BLP), not the event (Killing of Brian Thompson), so what respondents think of the killing itself doesn't belong in this article, especially the lead--readers can already read all of that in the Killing of Brian Thompson article, which is already linked in the lead and the body. Some1 (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It's merely an attempt to rectify a blatant undue weight issue in this article that reads as propaganda, calling him a "folk hero" to "many" which several polls suggest is vastly untrue. MB2437 19:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Not if you look at under-30s Catboy69 (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

15–29 year olds make up 23.9% of the adult U.S. population, a slight majority in that age range does not prove due weight when the other 76.1% disagree... MB2437 16:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this page not extended protected???

The healthcare ceo assassination is still *very* controversial. I think to prevent vandalism and for how recent this still is to make this page extended protected. Danhentschelfanboy (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Pages are not protected unless there is a demonstrated need (WP:PREEMPTIVE). Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

New York Post Presents: Luigi Mangione Monster or Martyr?

new documentary was just released recently. 🐦DrWho42👻 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

During the NYE Broadcast with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen, the comedian Whitney Cummings made several jokes and references to Luigi Mangione. Would it be better to cite the broadcast itself or other publications analyzing her remarks (For Example this)? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to reference every time jokes are made on various media. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Valid! I only mention it becuase the NYE broadcast has such a high national viewership. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image

The current infobox image is pending deletion at the Commons [2]; if the image gets deleted, feel free to use this image [3] for the article's infobox, which was uploaded with a non-free use rationale. (The image could use some cropping but I'm not sure how to do that.) Some1 (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Unused non-free images normally get deleted quite quickly in days, so either use it or it'll be deleted. Images can be cropped simply using Paint (should be free with Windows). GIMP can also be used but it's unnecessary (not worth installing the software for a simple crop). Hzh (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried adding the image to the article but it got removed twice due to the assumption that the current infobox image is "free." Do you know how quickly Commons deletion discussions usually get closed?

Wabbuh, since you cropped the current infobox image, do you want to crop this one too [4] and replace the current infobox image (which has dubious copyright status) with this one which has a NFU rationale? Some1 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow their deletion discussion closely, but I think discussion may be closed a week (or sooner) after nomination if the result is clear. The mugshot of Luigi Mangione was deleted after around a week of discussion (or not too long afterward) if I remember correctly. Some discussions however are not closed weeks or months after nominations if people are not interested in discussing them or the result unclear. It's always best to wait until discussion is closed there before unloading here as a non-free file. Therefore there is also no point in cropping the file now, do it after the Commons files are deleted. Hzh (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Hzh. The deletion discussion has been opened for a week now, but in case the file I uploaded does get deleted before the discussion formally closes, I'll just note here for the record that I got the image from this website: https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2024-12-10/luigi-mangiones-family-is-shocked-and-devastated-as-hes-formally-charged-with-murder.

It's a photo of Mangione taken at the Altoona, PA police station following his arrest on December 9. The author or copyright owner is the Pennsylvania State Police. I would prefer that if others do upload a non-free file (with a non-free use rationale) of Mangione that they use that photo of him and not the typical mugshot-style ones (the ones where he's in the orange or blue) as those might come off as inappropriate for a BLP when he's not convicted yet. Some1 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded a cropped version, hope it looks OK. I don't know how long that file will stay there, because it can be argued that it is replaceable, so people might try to delete it. Hzh (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Your version looks much better. Some1 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Has anyone tried to contact the Altoona PD and ask if they're willing to release the photo under a free license? Ixfd64 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

IvanScrooge98 Do you want to try? Granted, contacting law enforcement is different than contacting a guy on Instagram, so it's completely understandable if you (or anyone else) say no. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s a bit problematic. As far as I can see (their website won’t load), their primary contacts are phone and fax. Now, I don’t have a fax, I live several time zones away from the USA, and I don’t think we should waste a police department’s phone time over our Wiki discussions on image copyright anyway. There is an active Facebook page and an email address for the Chief of Police (jmerrill@altoonapa.gov) though, if we want to give those a try. As you said, it’s not the same as contacting a creator on Instagram, so if someone else is willing to proceed before me, I’ll gladly pass the baton – at least for the time being. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This page contains the email address altoonapolice@altoonapa.gov if you click the "Contact Us" button. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, great! That’s the website I was referring to, I guess it can’t be accessed from my location or outside the US. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not just ask his attorney law firm? Might even get a photo that doesnt make him look like a criminal Trade (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

PA press and LM reaction

Not seeing anywhere the direct source or video or article where the Pennsylvania press was quoted as saying "'Luigi, did you to it." To which LM started talking and shouting a response whilst being escorted in the building.

I'd omit that until it can be documented via video, sound feed, or original article. 12.51.231.130 (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Manifesto/Handwritten letter

There has been quite a bit of back and forth over the word used for this section Luigi_Mangione#Manifesto. Most recently I changed it back to be titled "Manifesto", but several editors seem to think that "Handwritten letter" is best. All the reliable secondary sources support the word choice of "Manifesto", but in a recent edit I even changed it to be "Manifesto" in quotes, with "Handwritten letter" as a second descriptor or label.

Please provide your arguments for one term or the other, including sources, here, and lets stabilize this seemingly volatile section of the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

While reliable secondary sources may use the word "Manifesto," it's essential to determine whether these sources are presenting the term as a neutral descriptor or if it reflects their own interpretation. Parts of the community argue that the term "Manifesto" can mislead readers into overestimating the document's scope or importance, "Handwritten letter" offers a neutral alternative.

Using a term like "Handwritten letter" minimizes any perception of editorial judgment regarding the document's purpose or significance, which helps maintain a tone of impartiality. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It would be WP:OR for us to use our own language and not WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES per longstanding consensus and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. NPOV is of course also policy, but that simply means that we need to weigh and reflect all of the reliable sources, not that we use our own invented or preferred language out of some interest in neutrality, "[NPOV] means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Iljhgtn (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ref #78 (NYT) says "handwritten document"; another NYT article says "handwritten document", as does this news article [5], the BBC [6], ABC News [7], and NBC News [8]. CBS says "handwritten note" [9], and so does NPR [10], CNBC [11][12], NBC News [13], and BBC [14]. Some reliable sources did also call the document a "manifesto," so I think that word is worth mentioning in the section, though not in wikivoice or in the section header. Some1 (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ref#78 says, and I quote, "Officers said they found him with fake identification, a weapon similar to the one seen in video of the killing and a manifesto decrying the health care industry."[15] So your first and probably the largest and most reliable example is already refuted. Next, there are many, examples of the word choice of "manifesto", including: The New York Times already cited, Democracy Now, Daily Beast, People, Yahoo News, PennLive, TheMirror, TheNewRepublic, and Washington Times... among many, many others. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Ref #78 also says: The man who was arrested on Monday in connection with the killing of the health care executive Brian Thompson was found with a handwritten document that spoke to his “motivation and mind-set,” Jessica Tisch, the commissioner of the New York Police Department, said at a news conference. (emphasis mine). Another NYT article [16] says "He also had a 262-word handwritten note..." I don't disagree that some reliable sources use the word "manifesto", but per my comment above, reliable sources also use "handwritten document"/"handwritten note". The charging document by the FBI refers to it as a "letter" and not a manifesto. It's up to editorial discretion at this point; at least 3 different editors prefer "handwritten [document/note/letter]" over manifesto for the section header, and only 1 editor (you) so far prefer the latter. Besides, it's not like the word "manifesto" doesn't appear anywhere in this article; it's in the first sentence of the section. Some1 (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

What if we used some combination of wording? I think that is an act of "editorial discretion" which best draws from the reliable sources but that also uses the most WP:PRECISE and accurate and widely used word choice. I could even leave it to you or another editor to make suggestions so that my own personal preference is neither dominant nor the starting point. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Handwritten [letter/note/document] is the most accurate and precise word choice, not manifesto. Some sources that use the word manifesto even put it in quotation marks or say it's a "so-called" manifesto. Some1 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think using the quotation marks for "Manifesto" is acceptable. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That'll make the header unnecessarily wordy, especially when the first sentence already says handwritten document, which some media outlets characterized as a "manifesto". Some1 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

good job

Actually good work from editors here, keeping up with all the sources of the support he received, the complex political background of the person, all the trials and stuff. Not easy. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)