Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Suspect name

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.
See #RfC: Name of suspect. —Alalch E. 09:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Discuss below. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
Yeah, it would seem as if we have enough confirmation to put his name in the body of the article but placing his name in the infobox seems premature. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@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)
The alias on his fake ID is not his identity and therefore I added it. I did not add, and have removed per policy, the reported real name. Please see #Assailant's identity paragraph below for the discussion on the identity paragraph. I have not reverted you since your request. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The NYPD police commissioner named him, so... doesn't seem to be confirmed by police is just flat wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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 • Contribs 19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The BBC just confirmed the name, as the BBC is reliable should we not add his name to the article? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
No. The suspect is not a public figure, so according to WP:SUSPECT, we cannot add his name to the article until he has been charged, tried, and convicted. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
They literally meet the definition of WP:PUBLICFIGURE…. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
That policy page doesn't define "public figure". Moreover, he does meet the definition of a "low-profile individual", which seems to be quite the opposite of a public figure. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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 • c 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
He’s been arrested and arraigned. Is Wikipedia’s rule that no one pending trial is allowed to be identified? 108.6.22.23 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@NapoliRoma What consensus against the name are you talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
"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)
Smallbones and I were disagreeing on the proper positioning of the paragraph and in the midst of that it seems a duplicate had popped up, one with the name and one without. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Yep; I didn't mean to get in the way of either the ongoing name or placement issues. NapoliRoma (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
Stupid Wikipedia policies. This is probably why everyone says you are unreliable. You omit information even after everything has been confirmed. 173.80.249.175 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 1 (Suspect name)

Link to the article: https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/luigi-mangione-5-key-facts-about-person-of-interest-in-brian-thompson-shooting-article-116148607 2600:1702:5225:C010:ACE9:213C:259:9374 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

WP:BLP is a policy with legal consequences. (CC) Tbhotch™ 01:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SHOUT are policies to be followed when participating on WP talk pages. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I am civil and assuming good faith. Please assume good faith and do not falsely accuse. Thank you. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
No false accusations were made by me. Thank you for removing the all-caps. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 2 (Suspect name)

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)

You don't provide an argument other than "other people have published the name". --ZimZalaBim talk 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with @ZimZalaBim on this one. We should hold off because while the name of the person of interest is in fact newsworthy it is not necessarily encyclopedic. (WP:NOTNEWS) Middle Mac CJM (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
See Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect name Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jfhutson I agree as well... wiki should wait at least until he is charged specifically with the murder... brings to mind Richard Jewell. 108.178.140.254 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Note that Mangione has now been charged with murder. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@ElijahPepe his name should now be plastered all over the Wikipedia article lol 108.178.140.254 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
What does everyone think about starting an RfC (request for comment) to name the suspect, similar to the one that was done at Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German? wizzito | say hello! 06:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea – MW(t•c) 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia became really censored lately, it is what it is. - Karel Bílek (talk). 06:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 3 (Suspect name)

Thread retitled from "The suspect has been charged".

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? Jbvann05 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we start an RfC, given the differing opinions here. wizzito | say hello! 06:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
It's not that unusual - see Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German#RfC: Suspect's name, Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings/Archive 1#RfC Naming the Suspect, Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings#RfC: Suspect's Name wizzito | say hello! 07:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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 • c 08:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
His name is being widely disseminated in reliable sources. There is no reason to not mention it. R. G. Checkers talk 06:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed all over the news. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 4 (Suspect name)

Thread retitled from "Naming the suspect".

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)

Please add your thoughts in the above conversation called RfC: Name of suspect. Kingturtle = (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
OK thanks, I've just seen the RfC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:13, 10 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Change reference to anesthesia insurance coverage from Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. 72.80.68.143 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Mangione's mugshot in the article yet?

Could it go either in the "Detainment" or "Charges" section? Ddellas (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently not, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doesn't release works in the public domain. NAADAAN (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
IIRC, new York state / city mugshots are PD, so when the transfer of custody is made a new NY one may be released. Maximilian775 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Public response section

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)

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)
I’m with Flusa, these are an incredibly
relevant detail - far moreso, I’d argue, than the politician responses. Snokalok (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

That sentence that you describe above is fine. Not overly detailed. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The public response is probably the most notable thing about this whole thing. It absolutely should be kept in. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. It is notable that this murder is 'celebrated' and defended. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Whether or not you think these are "mainstream views" doesn't matter - whether or not sources state they are does. Cortador (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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".
I think, therefore I am. [citation_needed]. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (2)

there's a spelling error in one of the images "hostel" needs to be changed to "hotel" Oofman9009 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But, Mangione stayed at a hostel, not a hotel. BOTTO (T•C) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: No, hostel is correct, assuming you're referring to the image of the HI New York City Hostel. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
alright my bad O9 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Motive box

Why is the motive box filled out as “justice” and other items when it was previously “unknown” plus those things?

Shouldn’t it “unknown” and other hypotheses like “justice” until the murderer is identified? HorseDonkey (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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. BenjaminKZ Talk 14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
unwarranted? You mean like how the deaths millions of people was unwarranted? 173.80.213.29 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (3)

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)

 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)

Infobox photo

What image should be used for the infobox photo? Ddellas (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)
Per WP:BLPCRIME, best practice is to wait for a conviction before posting the suspect's face. Alpacaaviator (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Trail has gone cold. He will never be found StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

Article image/CCTV video

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.

Thoughts? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You have made a good case (for your view), i feel.--I agree with your view (and action). 2001:2020:351:C573:E4A6:4F9F:13CE:A3AB (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

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)

See WP:PERPETRATOR: “For perpetrators,
  1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or
  2. 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.”
Wafflefrites (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Mark Rosario

Please add the fake ID name used by the perpetrator, "Mark Rosario"

Please change


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.

with the reference:

  • Jonathan Dienst; Tom Winter (9 December 2024). "Photos: Fake ID, gun allegedly found on Luigi Mangione, person of interest in CEO killing". NBC 4 New York.
{{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 }}

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 }}

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Background on US health system

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. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
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)

@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)

question about the timeline

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)

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)
The meeting actions are irrelevant to the timeline of the killing itself. We aren't here to provide context. I've removed it. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
"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. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
No, the fact a meeting was cancelled over 2 hours later isn't relevent to the specific timeline of the suspect or the victim. --ZimZalaBim talk 18:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
"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)

Assailant's identity paragraph

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 • Contribs 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
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 • Contribs 19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
@Super Goku V: The suspect has been charged with murder, per (for example) this NY Times article. The suspect is clearly now a public figure - there are a multitude of reliable published sources mentioning his name; his being a public figure means that Wikipedia policies 'do' allow us to include his name in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 05:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

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 ..."

"The Luxury Collection" should hyperlink to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Marriott_International#The_Luxury_Collection

Note: the hotel Thompson stayed at was formerly a Hilton Conrad hotel and changed to the Marriott Luxury Collection brand. Gravity slide (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: That level of detail is not necessary for a timeline that is intended to impart basic facts. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

False Information 2601:282:167E:38D0:3CBE:116B:296E:3A54 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 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. Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to the killing in the lead section

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)

this whole article is a mess. Conjecture, opinion, slant, defamation. Wiki has gotten really, really bad in the last few years. The toothpaste is out of the tube at this point. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a reasonable take. I've just changed the wording. guninvalid (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Suspect and assailant

Suspect is used in most cases.

Assailant is used when shooting.

Should not "Suspect" always be used to not imply that "Suspect" and "Assailant" are different people?

69.181.17.113 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

For all we know, the suspect is not the assailant Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Until convicted, we should use words like suspect and accused. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

Should the suspect’s health issues be included

Multiple reliable sources are reporting that he had back issues and underwent surgery. Here are just a few:

[1][2][3][4] [5]

Wafflefrites (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

tagging @Kingturtle as this is now a content revert dispute and we are now seeking talk page consensus for inclusion or exclusion Wafflefrites (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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?
Also under that section, do the sources directly link “right wing” views to motive? If not, shouldn’t that entire section be deleted as well? Wafflefrites (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

"The suspect" or "a suspect"?

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)

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)

Luigi's fake New Jersey identification card

Should we add the card's fake name (Mark Rosario of Maplewood, New Jersey), although it was truly Luigi Mangione of Towson, Maryland? Also to note that his date-of-birth is May 6, 1998, despite the fake card reads July 21, 1998, that was according to authorities. 2600:1702:5225:C010:DC07:993E:8E4F:3884 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
I also don't see how a reader would benefit from this information. —Alalch E. 10:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"In posts, he shared content praising Peter Thiel and Elon Musk." Is this necessary in this article? I am saying not

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)

I agree. I don't think it's important that he shared this content. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
The entire section on the suspects views does seem a little selective regardless, according to CNN his views not the run of the mill reactionary/right wing but more nuanced and syncretic https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/brian-thompson-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare-shooting-12-10-24#cm4j4h8c0003n3b6r98y7cp9e Shadowfax817 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
are you seriously using CNN as a source of information? 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
If so then his political skew needent be mentioned as it seem immaterial to his motive at this time. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024 (2)

Luigi Mangione is italian too, i'd like to add that JJackDiota (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

He might be Last of the Mohicans, but he's a living person first. Without reliable sourcing, we're not adding anything. BusterD (talk) 12:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Video

The shooting and subsequent killing of United Helthcare CEO Brian Thompson, as seen on security camera positioned outside of a building.

I have uploaded the video of the shooting (right) under a PD-automated rationale, but since this will 100% be disputed, I'll bring up the question: Should this be included in the article? Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored and that while some people may not like it, information here is vital. EF5 15:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
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. EF5 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. EF5 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Include it. There is no reason not to include the video. And it’s better if people were to see it on a secure site like this versus elsewhere StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
checkY Done, I have bold added it. If it's challenged, then this discussion can be reopened. EF5 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Herostratus, please be civil. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

CCTV Footage Removal

The CCTV footage is, in my view, too graphic. Should it be removed? Firecat93 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Einsof (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:UNCENSORED, per prior discussions there's yet to be a case made for its removal otherwise, but we should probably establish consensus on a rationale before removing it again. BenjaminKZ Talk 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@Firecat93 I did suggest to start this section in an edit summary, but subsequently I noticed that such a section already exists; therefore, merged. —Alalch E. 21:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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.
84.71.254.229 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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:
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science
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?
84.71.254.229 (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. BenjaminKZ Talk 15:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

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)
 Additional information needed Please provide sources for both of these claims Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

 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)
WP:BLUE? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Mangione family well-known in Baltimore

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.

https://www.wmar2news.com/homepage-showcase/alleged-gunman-wanted-for-murder-of-unitedhealthcare-ceo-is-from-maryland 2600:1702:5225:C010:ACE9:213C:259:9374 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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 • Contribs 21:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
He's already mentioned in relation to this case on his grandfather's bio. See Nicholas Mangione Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Other sources say the family is very rich.

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)

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.
As I said, it doesn't really matter now. HelenaBertrand (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of the term "manifesto"

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)

"Flirting" was not flirting - character assassination or stupid fill-in hypothesis.

He had to remove the mask so that the attendant could confirm his identification. Jacek.krysztofik (talk) 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you can you find a source to confirm that, we could use it. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

Stop adding the name of the journalist who published the manifesto to the lead

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)

I changed the lede to directly reference the published manifesto instead of the retelling by a police officer. I did not add the name of the journalist. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

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.

Unless I misunderstand. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
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)

Clearing up an edit war

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)

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)

Notebook found

His notebook (separate from the written manifesto) was found and authorities have released some initial details of what was written. Should be added to the evidence section https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/nyregion/luigi-mangione-assassination-plan-notebook.html 73.210.30.217 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Incel

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)

I've seen some media describe him as 'incel', although not a lot. More often they claim he led a reclusive and 'celibate' lifestyle prior to the killing, but no idea if the celibacy was voluntary or not.
In any event, even if he is/was an incel, this killing had nothing to do with incel stuff, and so it doesn't fall under this category. Incel-related violence refers to violent crimes specifically motivated by that factor. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Mention heightened discussion of jury nullification?

People are talking about the likelihood of jury nullification and advocating for heightened awareness around it as a result. There’s been an uptick in mentions of it. 2601:84:8D00:BFF0:39AC:2BE9:556A:C2D1 (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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)
Only source I could find was this, which is a terrible source. There's plenty of discussion on forums like Reddit but nothing in WP:RS yet. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Searching for "jury nullification" on Google News now gives articles from the Daily Mail [5] and UNILAD. [6] It goes without saying that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, but UNILAD is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Anyone know if UNILAD is considered reliable? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson/Archive_2&oldid=1262719248"