Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Non-neutral, almost celebratory lead

I changed this:

Thompson's death elicited reactions of contempt and mockery online from many Americans towards him and UnitedHealth Group. More broadly, many Americans criticized the U.S. healthcare system. Many social media users characterized the killing as deserved or justified; these attitudes relate to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry at large – primarily their strategies to deny coverage to clients. In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients who were denied healthcare.

to:

Thompson's death has received widespread attention in the United States and led to polarized reactions from the general public and commentators. The killing was denounced as murder, vigilantism, and based upon fundamental misunderstandings of the American healthcare system. There were also numerous online expressions of contempt and mockery from some Americans towards Thompson and UnitedHealth Group..

Many sources have stated that Thompson is a scaregoat, that the events were murder, and have given sympathy to his family. There's no evidence that a majority of Americans supported the killing. Experts such as Noah Smith have also shown that healthcare insurance companies have one of the lowest profit margins of any industry.

Clearly fails principles of neutrality. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOURCESDIFFER may be good to follow here. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Then we should use the second paragraph rather than the first. Saying that there were polarized and differing reactions makes a lot more sense than just saying everyone supported it. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Time and again we see these little social media mobs claiming to represent majority opinion, and time and again it's shown to be false. There are a lot of topics trending on the internet right now -sometimes this case is listed among them, oftentimes it's not. Not everyone is paying attention to this, most people aren't. And considering it's Christmas season, I think it's rather the case that "many Americans" are shopping and spending time with family, as opposed to following news stories or spam posting memes about the health insurance industry.
The social media reaction is covered extensively in RSes and so we can't avoid it in this article. But the language we use should not imply that the wider public is indulging in schadenfreude, or trying to rationalize murder over healthcare grievances. This is what these social media users want everyone to believe, and like many other claims they're making, it's unverified. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I've renamed the section heading from Public to Online and social media, so "public" reactions (ambiguous) aren't conflated with online reactions. Some1 (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think “ Thompson's death has received widespread attention in the United States and led to polarized reactions from the general public and commentators. The killing was denounced as murder, vigilantism, and based upon fundamental misunderstandings of the American healthcare system. There were also numerous online expressions of contempt and mockery from some Americans towards Thompson and UnitedHealth Group.” follows the SOURCESDIFFER policy better, but I didn’t see info about polarized reactions or misunderstandings of healthcare in the body. This needs to be added in the body per mos:lead. Some1’s version seems to be summarizing the body better. Wafflefrites (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, but I can't take credit for writing the paragraph, I believe @Snokalok: did? I agree that the current paragraph in the lead ("Thompson's death elicited reactions of contempt and mockery online from many Americans towards him and UnitedHealth Group...") summarizes the Responses section better than the proposed one by RomanianObserver41, which I have to say, doesn't come across as neutral to me. Some1 (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
As i said above, which you clearly felt the need to start a second thread for, I looked at the sources you used. The Sky News one didn’t say the word “minority” anywhere, the National Review one is an opinion piece in an RSP yellow partisan source, and the last one is a blog. Snokalok (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The current paragraph reflects the body much better. Yes, this is a widespread response, the sources overwhelmingly agree on that, and trying to rewrite the paragraph as otherwise comes across as blatant povpushing. Snokalok (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I have broken down the response section. The reactions seem to be polarized between online vs. Politicians, some academics etc. one academic even called it similar to domestic terror. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s worth noting that we also have academics on the online side in the body. Regardless, I don’t think we can say polarized and have it be quite fair, simply because tens of thousands of people, even if only on social media, are still 10000x more people than the single digit number of politicians saying otherwise. “Polarized” implies a connotation of two comparable sides, when this is very much a many vs few scenario Snokalok (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
The word “polarized” has been used in several sources so that is why I am agreeing with the use of the word. [1][2][3] Wafflefrites (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Widespread" response? It's widespread among the people who are immersed in this story, to claim this response is 'widespread' among the American public is completely unverified, and almost certainly not true. The same online mob thought Mangione would never be apprehended because the public would protect him, when in reality it was ordinary citizens who identified him and called 911. They're now claiming no jury will convict him, and they'll be wrong again. It's entirely naive to assume every eruption on social media reflects widespread sentiment, unless there is actual evidence indicating as much. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggested edit

The article is so big now I wouldn't dare trying to add anything to it, but this feels related to the online responses section. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

See the last sentence of paragraph 3 under Online and social media Wafflefrites (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Right Wing?

Judging by his manifesto and even his twitter content I wouldnt necessarily say he was right wing - rather syncretic, supporting left AND right wing ideas. Iska-Germany (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources universally describe him as right-wing or anti-modern/capitalist reactionary. (Yes, they exist, and the Unabomber was widely considered to be one.)
The Independent:

Earlier this year, Mangione shared a poston his X account of another user praising Musk for his “commitment to long-term civilization success.” It referenced a post by Musk from March this year where he claimed he was “in a battle to the death with the anti-civilizational woke mind virus.”... Other posts Mangione shared lamented “wokeism” in society, and he also responded to one post that claimed God had been replaced by people “worshipping at the DEI shrine, using made-up pronouns like religious mantras and firing professors for saying men can’t get pregnant.”... In response, Mangione shared a link to an article from the Daily Telegraph newspaper in the UK which railed against an anti-hate crime law introduced in Scotland in 2021.

The Cut:

Mangione had not updated his Goodreads account recently, but toward the beginning of the year, he did add Infinite Jest, Atlas Shrugged, and American Prometheus (the biography that Oppenheimer was based on) to his “Want to Read” list... His favorites list is full of the kind of nonfiction favorites that right-leaning libertarian types love to peddle.

The Spectator:

The news that UnitedHealthcare’s CEO, Brian Thompson, had been killed sent an immediate shockwave across America, prompting quick assumptions about the assassin’s motive. Early chatter on platforms such as BlueSky speculated that the shooter, who is now suspected to be “tech whiz” and UPenn graduate Luigi Mangione, might be some kind of anti-capitalist folk hero. As details emerged, these hypotheses began to fall apart. Mangione, who was taken into custody Monday, was skeptical of “woke” culture, followed several right-libertarian figures online — and curated a GoodReads list heavy on Silicon Valley self-help, futurism, psychedelics and advice on treating chronic back pain... He gravitated toward “traditionalism,” a term gaining traction in certain media spaces as shorthand for a certain right-tinged longing: for older aesthetics, more formal courtship rituals, seemingly more authentic ways of life. Thinkpieces abound about this niche of right-coded thought, which seeks permanence and depth beyond what the digital present seems to offer.

The New Republic:

In April, he posted that “modern Japanese urban environment is an evolutionary mismatch for the human animal. The solution to falling birthdates isn’t immigration. It’s cultural.” He reshared another video from June of Republican megadonor Peter Thiel talking about people with Asperger’s running start-ups. He reposted a pseudo-motivational quote, “Netflix, door dash, and true crime podcasts have stolen more dreams than failure ever will.” And he reposted several messages railing against “wokeism.”

There's also a long tradition of anti-capitalist conservatism. The vast majority of both conservative and liberal sources describe him as right-wing and opposed to liberal modernity. Need it be reminded: the reactionary German political figure Otto von Bismarck introduced universal healthcare. None of this is new. The Unabomber, who he apparently admired, was also in many ways a reactionary or conservative political figure despite also supporting environmentalism and opposing modern capitalism. His political beliefs deserve mention in the article... seeing as this is widely regarded as a political killing and he's the charged suspect. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 While this is all true, most of these sources use circumstancial evidence. Books that 'libertarians like to peddle' for example. Me personally I dont think things such as that are enough to class one as right wing.
On top of that more traditionalist viewpoints/anti-wokeism are also not limited to the right wing and is seen under both left and right (A good example would be the german BSW, which is socially right and economically left)
Statements regarding the Unabomber seem to see him as having good idea, but having failed to act in a good way, the unabomber being a great example of a person similar to left wing which both denied his position in the left and had many positions that werent leftist. In fact the Unabomber is also partially popular under the right aswell, despite being ideologically closer to the anarchist left. Despite his complaints he seemingly classified the Unabomber as good and rates the manifesto positively and in his review presents clear anti-capitalist sentiment.
Citing Otto von Bismarck is also not exactly a good example, as he introduced legislation as appeasement, not because he believed in it - he wanted to destroy workers movements. He believed that the left was a plague and was both socially and economically right.
I would also at the end like to note that being socially conservative but economically left wing makes you not necessarily right wing but again rather syncretic.
Classing Magione therefore as right wing is in my opinion misrepresenting many views he had. At least he should be referred to as socially right but economically left. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
None of the added wording directly stated he was right-wing. It said he had interest in libertarian, tech community "anti-woke centrists/center-right" people, traditionalist, reactionary, and conservative thinkers who opposed modern liberal modernity and often advocated violent resistance to it. None of that is disputed by anyone..
What economically left-wing views is he confirmed to have expressed? It's very possible, for instance, that he supported a totally free-market economic system and saw government-private insurance regulations & their lobbying (private-public) against "free market"'as the reason for America's poor standard of healthcare. (Not an uncommon position among the crowds that he followed.)
The phrasing I used states that he expressed concern over the decline of Christianity and secularism, birth rates, modern industrial society, wokeism, and various other personal bugbears. His interest in the Unabomber, topics surrounding Asperger's Syndrome, and hobbies also deserve mention.
I'm fine with moving it into another section but to not list his political views in an article about an apparent political kills strains all sense of credibility. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 You werent the one who added the part claiming he has been reffered to as right wing - it seems to have already been removed.
I believe due to the current uncertainty of the actual political views of Magione we cannot or shouldnt write statements speculating or citing speculation, as his positions as published seem to be very broad. His quote 'these parasites had it coming' could very much for one refer to CEOs or businessmen.
Overall I just think the section is unnecessary. It has already been removed however, so its fine now. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It was not removed. It states i the article that he is a "right wing reactionary" which there is no evidence of this whatsoever. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Literally none of those are WP:Reliable Sources, nice try though 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
the Unabomber was not right-wing. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Simply, it doesn't matter what you think, but any label used must be supported by a reliable source applying the same lable. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I reinstated it. It's pretty astonishing that many here apparently seem to believe that right-wing individuals can't hold gripes against insurance companies. Much of early conservatism in Europe was against capitalism.
The New York Times, Washington Post, and conservative websites like National Review have also noted his interest in traditionalist & right-wing libertarian, and reactionary philosophy. It makes sense. The Unabomber (who he repeatedly cited online and in real life) was also a right-wing figure who is often misinterpreted as a communist or left-anarchist revolutionary. Why should we not include the political beliefs of the suspect or his interest in the Unabomber? This is the type of article where political views of the suspects are especially important.
I have a feeling that many here (particularly on the left) wanted him to be a communist, socialist, or anarchist, so that is why these cited sources are getting resistance.
No good argument for excluding it. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 Traditionalist ideals again are not exclusive to the right wing. There are parties today that are considered part of the leftist spectrum yet are socially right.
Its honestly quite an american view to inherently connect social and economic issues to define the sides.
Stalin could be considered right wing if we look at the things that were enough to class Magione as right wing, despite Stalin being a member of the communists in the USSR.
(Support for more traditional views are found with stalin, alongside authoritarianism)
Interestingly enough I do however admit that Stalin is often seen as non-left by various individuals, so the whole right/left spectrum is VERY subjective. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Except every political party on Wikipedia has a political position on its respective page. Right and left-wing relate to support for social hierarchy. We can continue this discussion below. I'm going to get an administrator involved (to start a request for comment for me) if this can't be sorted out. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
An interest in something does not mean you support it. Stop being dense. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 "The Unabomber was also a right-wing figure who is often misinterpreted as a communist or left-anarchist revolutionary."
Evidence of this? Kaczynski openly endorsed Anarchism in ISAIF. Anyone who claims that Ted Kaczynski was right-wing either hasn't read ISAIF or is functionally illiterate, since the manifesto is written in a very direct and simple language. 109.53.228.195 (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@ZimZalaBim The problem is those sources that Romanianobserver just showed is that none of those call him right wing, rather pointing out that he followed individuals that were socially right wing. At the same time sources such as his own writings (for example the Unabomber review or the snippets of the Manifesto we have) suggest a strong opposition to business, which again is economically left.
Yahoo is one source that refers to him as 'seemingly leaning right' - calling him right wing outright would be unfitting. Ted Cruz also referred to him as leftist, which almost certainly referred to his economic ideas. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The new paragraph would state:

Social profiles of Mangione have suggested interest in right-wing thought forms of violent resistance, including the Unabomber, against liberal modernity. He also expressed or reposted concerns about secularization and the decline of Christianity in the Western World, fertility rates, DEI programs, and "wokeism" in society. Other displayed interests included Asperger's Syndrome and Pokémon. In a review of Industrial Society and its Future, a critique of industrial civilization, he described the Unabomber as "rightfully imprisoned" while also saying, "'Violence never solved anything' is a statement uttered by cowards and predators". In April, he wrote: "Horror vacui (nature abhors a vacuum)" in relation to secularism and secularization, and posted in May 2024 an essay written in high school titled How Christianity Prospered by Appealing to the Lower Classes of Ancient Rome thatsuggested the religion's superiority over paganism.

All of this warrants mention. It's well-sourced, widely covered in dozens of news articles, and confirmed politicsl opinions of the suspect. I cannot imagine why someone would not want to include the vast majority of this into the article. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
This is all speculative WP:SYNTH. He could have "interst" in all kinds of things...that doesn't necessarily mean those interests are connected to the shooting. We aren't here to create a profile of him as a person, but to summarize sourced facts appropraite for an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
It's not WP: SYNTH (after reading it) to report other newspapers and online websites have paid significant attention to all of these things. The suspect's political views are clearly important surrounding what is likely to be a political killing. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The fact that he "reposted concerns about secularization and the decline of Christianity in the Western World, fertility rates, DEI programs, and "wokeism" in society" is mentioned in hundreds of articles. That link has no apparent relation to the suggested phrasing. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 Looking at the section especially referring to his review of Unabomber seems to ignore how he expressed very (economically) left opinions in his review, rather focusing on his statements supporting violence and almost seems written as if he opposed the Umabomber outright, when in his review he seemingly criticized that the Unabomber wasnt accurate enough in his attacks.
As said both the articles and the writing seem very speculative and probably shouldnt be in the article until there is a clearer picture. He could very much follow people described as right wing, while not supporting all their positions. On the other hand there are also leftists who have been described as right wing, which further adds to the problem of speculating on peoples opinions based on a handful of tweets and seemingly wildly varying opinions. Iska-Germany (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Then we can just not list him as right-wing and note the political positions he has taken on social med. We're not speculating about his views if we're reporting what he has said. It's confirmed information. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 Correct. What I referred to as speculation was the label right-wing
The rest is mostly fine (although to me the unabomber section still seems weirdly written - as if he opposed his writings outright, which he didnt in the review) Iska-Germany (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I added it back in. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I raised this issue in a talk section up top but got zero feedback.
Please see Jeffrey Sonnenfeld's and Steven Tian's piece in Yale Insights, which should be cited in main article.[4] They talk about a "unholy alliance" between populists on the far-left and far-right, where both extremes are borrowing each other's ideas. This is consistent with recent political science research indicating that anti-elite sentiment trumps traditionally partisan ideologies these days (see[5])
And while I'm not personally a reliable source and so won't link my own essays, I have been researching American populism for over a year now and can vouch for the 2 sources linked above. The extremes on the right (in the MAGA movement) and the extremes on the left (say, the Bernie Sanders crowd) have more common ground with each other than the moderates in their own parties. It's here where you find a mix of both anti-woke and anti-corporate views, perhaps typified by commentators like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan, who are quite hard to pin down ideologically.
With this in mind, it's entirely misleading to link suspect's "right wing" views to this particular murder. Suspect was not hearing rhetoric against the health insurance industry from the right-wing media -this is entirely the domain of the left. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Interest does not equal adherence. You are just shamelessly trying to paint him as a right wing nutjob. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
i agree, i'd consider his politics syncretic. he followed right-wing and far-right figures and was anti-secularization and anti-"DEI", yet was critical of trump and the republican party.
he followed AOC, and was critical of billionaires and corporations, and by extension, likely american capitalism as well, but this doesn't necessarily mean he was critical of capitalism itself. i'd consider his politics syncretic, center-libertarian or anarchist instead of left or right, although i would say more influenced by right-wing views than those of the left.
i think that the part of his beliefs in the main section, such as "suggesting interest in anti-liberal thought, as well as forms of violent resistance..." should be kept, although a section should be added clarifying his beliefs were more in common with those of libertarians and some anarchists than those of an average american online conservative, at least from my point of view.
lastly, i'd definitely add how the event that apparently radicalized him was his chronic back pain resulting from a severe spinal injury. this event radicalizing him and leading to this event apparently has been confirmed by multiple sources personally knowing him, including his family and former roommates/friends. Teluguwaifu (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I feel like I'm talking to a wall here -the fact that he had hybrid views is entirely consistent with recent trends in American politics. We live in an age of mass variety, and consumers like to mix their political views as much as their Starbucks orders or the genres they watch on Netflix. To say he held some right-wing views does not imply this particular murder was motivated by right-wing ideology.
The ideas that motivate political violence have origins, and only one side of American politics has spent the last 30 odd years attacking the health insurance industry, and it isn't the right. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jonathan f1 Talking to a wall? He essentially agreed with you. The Populist mixing of ideologies is often referred to as syncretic. Iska-Germany (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Right, but this murder was specific, and had nothing to do with wokeness or DEI. The far-right activist Richard Spencer, for example, is notorious because of his views on race. The fact that he has some left-wing ideas about the economy and consumerism isn't why he's notable. I 100% agree with the syncretic blend of populism as I described above, but not sure what all of Mangione's political views have to do with this particular killing. Political violence against economic elites is inherently far-left. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
While more remains to be seen, Mangione's views are classic far right and only unreliable, highly partisan right-wing sources such as the NY Post claim otherwise. And the far right frequently attacks the elites. Look at the campaigns against George Soros, AARP, Budweiser and Disney. TFD (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
If "more remains to be seen" then you wait before publishing opinion that is more than likely false. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Also what are you on about? Budweiser is "elite"? In what universe? It is known is cheap, bottom-of-the-barrel beer. And of course that has literally nothing to do with this article whatsoever, nor do his supposed political views of which little is concretely known. Your leftist bias is showing. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
People across the political spectrum commit ideologically motivated crimes. It's not bias to say that the far right is included among them.
While the vast majority of Bud drinkers are not part of the elite, they don't own the company. TFD (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

I've removed two sentences from the lead section about "Mangione's social media profiles." Only a small portion of sources deal with this material and it seems unclear to me that what was on his Goodreads profile is among the most important elements on this case. Certainly, some of this might be due weight for the body of the article, but inclusion in the lead is a separate discussion. The lead section should stick to the core elements on the topic. When it doubt, we should wait and see what sources develop. Neutralitytalk 18:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Neutrality I agree. I think his political opinions remain to be seen in the close future - they are too unclear atm Iska-Germany (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, it remains to be seen if Mangione has ever written anything about UnitedHealtcare being too woke or needing to get rid of its DEI department, but as it stands right now, his manifesto was very far-left in rhetoric. I suppose some political commentators are trying to dig up everything this guy's ever said about politics and link it to this murder, but this was very specific. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of this in the lead is so obviously for bad-faith reasons, an attempt to split what has been a unified public opinion. It can be included and expanded on wherever else, but this is at least out of place in the lead. Ironmatic1 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Broadly, we need to be cautious about simply restating what news sources happened to find on his social media accounts. We are an encyclopedia and it is ok for us to have higher standards and wait and see if such content becomes specifically and directly relevant to his actions. WP:NOTEVERYTHING is a good approach here. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate chart

The background section has a chart presented as "Claim Denial Rates Based on Insurance Company" with data from ValuePenguin. ValuePenguin's data is "Based on available in-network claim data for plans sold on the marketplace." Insurance plans sold on the marketplace are a specific slice of less than 10% of all insurance plans in the US, however the chart seems to imply that it's showing the overall denial rate for all plans. I don't think this is a fair representation of the data available. I suggest modifying the title of the chart to "Claim Denial Rates Based on Insurance Company For Plans Sold on a Marketplace". Also, the chart says "as of December 5, 2024", but ValuePenguin's data is from 2022. OberynMartellFan (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I know, I raised this issue before but got zero feedback. As I mentioned 3 times now, private plans are confidential and so the only data we have comes from public plans that interact with UH, like Medicare Advantage. No one actually knows how often private health insurance companies deny claims, but you'd never know it from the endless repeating of that one chart. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the chart. I am also nominating the chart for deletion. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I'd support that move. It's a worthless chart for its purpose, and very likely inflates the rate at which private claims are denied. Consider the fact that, according to reports, UnitedHealthcare's denial rate shot up to 22% in 2022 for people on Medicare Advantage[6]. Now consider this:
"According to research, a significant portion of people on public health plans request unnecessary medical treatments, with estimates suggesting that between 20-40% of medical care on public plans could be considered overutilization or unnecessary,"[7]
So, if overutilization is going on at these rates on public plans (much higher than private plans, as you'd expect), then a denial rate of 22% or even 32% sounds about right for a company doing their due diligence. The only reason this chart is being passed around is because it makes UH look bad, but few people sharing it know where the data came from, let alone why it's potentially misleading. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Mark Rosario

Please change


to

He checked into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on November 24, 2024, with a falsified New Jersey identification card and paid in cash. His fake New Jersey ID used the name "Mark Rosario". He stayed all but one night of the 10 days he was in New York City at the hostel, checking out on December 3, 2024

The change is highlighted in green.

using the references

  • "Who is Luigi Mangione, the suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO's murder?". Al Jazeerea. 10 December 2024.
  • Olivia Evans (9 December 2024). "Luigi Mangione Arrested at McDonald's: How Police Found Person of Interest in UnitedHealthcare CEO Death". E! News. E! Online. 1410947 – via E! Networks.

{{cite news |url= https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2024/12/10/who-is-luigi-mangione-suspect-in-unitedhealthcare-ceos-murder |title= Who is Luigi Mangione, the suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO’s murder? |date= 10 December 2024 |publisher= Al Jazeerea }}

{{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 }}

The E!Online reference has a photo of the fake ID itself.

-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

What does the reader get out of this addition? Einsof (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
It provides the alias used as id when he was arrested, and the id used at the hostel. So, the identity of the suspect as the suspect presented himself as. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Not much, seems like. Kire1975 (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Excellent way to phrase the issue. The answer is: "nothing", except an additional sentence to an already large article. Marcus Markup (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thomas M. Dickey

Should we start a page for Mangione's defense attorney Thomas M. Dickey? 🐦DrWho42👻 02:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

No Alpacaaviator (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
He doesn't appear to be notable apart from this case.War (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
No, for the reason stated above. Trilomonk (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I agree with War. I don't think anybody has heard of him until now. Cyb3rstarz (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with all the above. Who even knows if he'll be the attorney for the New York/federal charges. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Linguistics (phonetics) question

Under "Suspect", the text gives a pronunciation guide for the first name "Luigi". However, the pronunciation is a bit different in American English, as there's no long vowel (i:) in English; I deleted the long vowel symbol (:) there. As the pronunciation is very similar in both languages, with English speakers tending to make diphthongs out of "u" and "i", I think the pronunciation of "Luigi" could be deleted entirely. Any comments? It's the surname "Mangione" that is truly pertinent: it has a very different pronunciation among most Italian Americans compared to Italians. Its pronunciation guide should appear as it already does—the Americanized pronunciation the family uses today in the U.S. and the original Italian pronunciation the patriarch Nicholas Mangione used when he immigrated. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no source to back up the entire pronunciation, so removing it per WP:OR. EF5 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
A valid source would help, yes. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Luigi's Amtrak trip to Philadelphia

Authorities replied just a few moments ago that Luigi went south to New York Penn Station after crossing through the George Washington Bridge Bus Station and left New York City on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor to Philadelphia instead of a bus. Pennsylvania authorities have said Mangione then spent several days traversing the state from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killing-latest-luigi-mangione/story?id=116713658 2600:1702:5225:C010:7067:4B5F:E1B8:DDC2 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for edit

In the lead, the second paragraph currently reads: "Thompson's death received reactions of online contempt and mockery from many Americans towards him and UnitedHealth Group. More broadly, many Americans criticized the U.S. healthcare system. Many social media users characterized the killing as deserved or justified; these attitudes relate to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry at large – primarily their strategies to deny coverage to clients. In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients who were denied healthcare."

I wish to advocate for a change to this, with the reasons following on: "Following Thompson's death, there was a significant social media reaction that characterized the killing as deserved or justifiable; these attitudes related to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry in general - in particular their strategies to reject clients' claims on their healthcare insurance policies. Comparisons were made between the harm done to Thompson and the harm caused to citizens who were denied financial support to access healthcare."

The changes are not terribly significant or controversial. There will be editors who will argue about the inclusion of much of this paragraph in the first place - and in fact I would be one of those. But given it appears just now in the way quoted, I'm simply hoping to improve on what is there and certainly not to condone or justify it. I've dropped the first sentence and merged the sense of it into the second sentence. I felt the phrase "[his] death received online reactions of contempt..." could have been misconstrued as people reacting in the "normal" way of expressing contempt/disgust that a civilian was murdered. I've left one instance of 'clients' as was, and changed the second instance to 'citizens'. While I'm sure most/all readers 'get it', the word 'client' sounds a bit 'corporate' and it's important to make clear that the outcry was about harm to real people/members of the public/sick folk. I think 'citizens' conveys that better than 'clients'. I've tinkered round the edges of "denied healthcare" - it's not a big deal, but for the sake of adding a few words it becomes clearer that it isn't so much that citizens were denied healthcare (because the resources are all there, ready and waiting to assist patients) but were denied the financial support (that they expected from their insurer) to pay for/access what I gather is an excellent healthcare system (at the point of treatment). In other words, I simply wanted to make it clear that the issue isn't' with the medical personnel or physical infrastructure - it is about affordability and patients being let-down by their insurance policies. I've changed a couple of other small things: instead of "many social media users" I suggest "significant" - both terms provide only loose definitions of the scale, but I think 'significant' is less problematic than 'many'. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As long as it's characterized as the opinion of social media users, and not implied to represent a prevailing view in American society, then it seems fine to me. The 'claim denial' data they're using comes from a single source that looked at public plans that interact with UH, like Medicare Advantage. Private plans are kept confidential so the actual rate at which UH denies claims or prior authorization requests is unknown[8]. It is even less known what "deaths" UH is responsible for -this is pure speculation. At least one source in this article describes this social media sentiment as coming from a "vocal fringe[9]." Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely I agree with all you've said. I have qualms about the current version (which I had no input into at all). I'm going on the basis that what is already written has been reviewed by others and is still there. Whether it's accurate or whether it should be in the lead - I really don't know and I'm not going to dwell on that. I simply thought that what is there just now is a bit wordy, a bit clumsy in places, and there were language/style points that I thought could be better expressed. So I've tried to compress the paragraph, and I think little changes like "many social media users [said]" to "a significant social media reaction", and "clients" to "citizens" are worthwhile. The use of "many" was a case of weasel-words - it's quantitative without any actual measure. "Significant" is qualitative and more justifiable since the media coverage of the social media response supports it being noteworthy at least in a current affairs context, i.e. significant in the context of the events. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
"contempt and mockery" the way it is written is very vague. There is a need for such a change. Kire1975 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Brilliant, thank you @Kire1975. My suggestions have been live for almost seven hours now - I don't see any objections but I don't see any action either. Do any of the editors controlling the article have any qualms with my semi-protected edit request that they would like to raise? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
We seem to be on the same page. I too have an issue with that content but there are so many RSes discussing the social media reaction that something needs to be said about it. But the wording is critical. To say 'many social media users' -what's that supposed to mean? People on social media discuss economics, science, history, sports, true crime, gardening -not everyone is immersed in politics, and not everyone immersed in politics is following this case. Some stay glued to developments in Israel and Gaza, others are following Trump news. It's rather the case that only some small fraction of social media users have strong opinions about this case, but tend to be quite vocal about it, and many have expressed extreme views. I think "significant social media reaction" is better than "many social media users," but even here it's somewhat ambiguous. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Be WP:BOLD. Kire1975 (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"media reaction[ref1] [ref2] [ref3] of significance"

That might be an okay start, before we end up with "significant media reaction". 2001:2020:319:C51C:FD35:8B20:7C7C:FD7A (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Name pronunciation in Italian

I tried removing the Italian pronunciation of Mangione's name due to the fact that he's American, but my edit was reverted with the reason that the name is "in Italian". This doesn't make sense. The name is "in" whatever Mangione's first language is, not wherever it descends from. We don't have the Italian pronunciations for DeVito, de Blasio, or Luigi himself listed for the same reason. CC:@IvanScrooge98 – MW(t•c) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I had added it for sake of completeness given that even his given name is in Italian. Now the whole (English+Italian) pronunciation was removed for lack of citations so I’m primarily going to work on providing them considering the media attention he’s getting. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
What does "in Italian" mean? Again, names are "in" whatever language the person who has them speaks regardless of what language they descend from. – MW(t•c) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Luigi is a name in the Italian language. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
At times yes but in this instance it's a name in the English language since the person who has it is (most likely) a native English speaker. I'm only be persistent about this because by your logic we should have IPA transcriptions for every English name that descends from another language, which is the vast majority of English names. – MW(t•c) 16:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not a name "descending" from some other language though, it hasn't been adapted. Instead it's been taken the way it is from another language. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The spelling is the same as the Italian name, but the pronunciation would have been adapted to fit with the American English sound inventory. – MW(t•c) 17:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
This is also why we should wait until we have a source for the pronunciation. Depending on the family, it could've been adapted as /ˈmændʒioʊn/, /mɔːnˈdʒoʊni/, /mændʒiˈoʊni/, or something else. – MW(t•c) 17:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
As for the character Luigi, the Italian pronunciation was removed by a user who thought it was too cluttering. Which I absolutely disagree on but I didn’t want to engage in a debate about that. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
@IvanScrooge98: IPAs must be cited. I had to remove almost twenty IPAs from constellation FAs because the IPAs were completely unsourced. How does someone know how his name is pronounced if it's IPA has never been covered by reliable sources? EF5 16:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
A pronunciation can be given in other systems from IPA, and sometimes audio pronunciations suffice to determine their IPA transcription. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Including the continental pronunciation of a name, for an American who does not seem to have even visited Europe, is goofy. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It is goofy considering the fact that virtually everyone's name in this country originates somewhere else, often Europe. It'd be like putting the Irish pronunciation for a subject named Declan or Sean. Luigi is hardly an exotic name in America -it's been widely known via video games for decades. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no need for an Italian pronunciation, and IMO, no need even for how to pronounce "Luigi". ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree also. The latest edit I saw, citing only the surname Mangione's pronunciation in American English, is the least jarring format. There's no need for any involved (and pretentious) prononciation lesson in Italian, a language that few of Nicholas Mangione's grandchildren speak with native fluency. They are all American-born and speak American English. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It does come off as pretentious, and as others have said, the American pronunciation is quite different than Italian, and it is not common for Americans of Italian descent to use the Italian version. I know a family named D'Ercole who pronounce it "der" and "coal". In Italy it'd be something like dee-air-coh-lee, which no one in the family uses, and the younger generation isn't even aware of it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It makes sense to me to list the pronunciation (if we know how he chooses to pronounce it), because in the US some people with the name pronounce it as man-JOE-nee while others pronounce it as man-gee-OH-nee. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It makes no sense at all to me to list any kind of pronunciation for this guy's name. It adds no value to anybody's comprehension or needs and given that no source is being provided for a name which is pronounced multiple ways by holders of the surname, it seems like original research to me. Marcus Markup (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
No source? I have sourced the pronunciation. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Who even is that news reader? Citing her for an encyclopedic definition of the pronunciation of his name is... words cannot express how bad that "source" is. She is a news reader who was presenting a news story. In that business, they put a script in front of the reader, and they read it to the best of their ability. They cannot be seriously considered in any way used as a "source" except for how that one reader thinks his name should be pronounced. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Lyme disease neurologic and/or psychiatric symptoms of the suspect

Luigi Mangione lawyer might use as defence that his mental state was altered because he had brain fog and mental complication due to his Lyme disease, as some statements discussion appeared online.

Although many patients will improve with appropriate treatment, others will experience ongoing Lyme disease symptoms that may stay with them years or forever, including impaired cognitive function, with several neurologic and/or psychiatric symptoms, debilitating depression, paranoia, dementia, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, major depression, anorexia nervosa, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Mangione detailed on Reddit past posts that he had struggles with health issues including Lyme disease and severe brain fog, which he said started after losing sleep during his fraternity’s “hell week” and caused his college grades to start “tanking.” He expressed frustration about how little was understood by the medical community about brain fog, writing that “it’s absolutely brutal to have such a life-halting issue… The people around you probably won’t understand your symptoms - they certainly don’t for me.”

I never got the impression he would self-destruct:’ Friends of suspect in fatal CEO shooting left in shock CNN Retrieved 10 Decembre 2024

What is spondylolisthesis, the back condition that derailed Luigi Mangione’s life? Los Angeles Times Retrieved 11 December

Questioning the role of Lyme disease in the case of Luigi Mangione Lyme Disease Org 12 December 2024

KamiroVolta (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Folks, Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a tabloid. We do not need to report on every single new tidbit of gossip, speculation, or tangential thing that might maybe possibly but who knows if is relevant to an article's topic. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Your repetitive arguments on this page demonstrate a certain political agenda and belligerent behavior that does not conform to this platform. The medicals facts related to the suspect of one of the most publicized crimes of the decade is highly relevant. We want you to respect the democratic system of this page and stop all redundant dominating comportment. Thanks. KamiroVolta (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I see you've been here a total of one day. Perhaps you want to check the five pillars that guide this project. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Also be nice to newcomers! They are not familiar with best sources and all the rules yet. I have just come from editing another contentious topic area on Wikipedia 🤦‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏽‍♂️🤦🏽‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️ so I am very often trying to follow the policies and guidelines and reliable sources (although I may misinterpret or misread them), but it can be a lot of rules and some are not that easy to understand or recognize violations. Even editors that have been on Wikipedia for more than a decade or have 10k plus edits, I have seen some of them making mistakes with policies. Contentious topics can be more stressful. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s too soon to add this info. The court trial hasn’t even started. I think we should wait to see if the lawyer decides it’s relevant enough to use as part of the defense. There is still a lot we don’t know, and also the Lyme disease source is a opinion blog source, see WP:blogs. Also please don’t cast aspersions, see WP:ASPERSIONS.

Wafflefrites (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Right. I agree that the tools that future lawyers will use in the case, as the outcome of a disease, are only probabilities. Sometimes probabilities are part of relevant information, could I cite here the many Wikipedia articles on the subject of economics, but I agree with you to restrict probabilities statements. Nonetheless, this subject of probability aside, the fact - the only fact - that the suspect had Lyme disease, and that he was treated for this long-term disease is now reported by many sources of legit media, and is a relevant information just like his back injury referred to in the article. KamiroVolta (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"Real estate family". Consider changing that (non-encyclopedic; not defined if ownership of 2 or 3 houses - maketh a 'real estate family')

"... hails from a real estate family based in Maryland".--Non-encyclopedic.--If the point is that his uncle or grandfather was the 100,000th richest (or whatever) in a specific U.S. State, then say so. 2001:2020:305:9450:3C87:760A:993D:114A (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

We say what RSes say, which is that he's from a prominent real estate family in Maryland. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I have changed the reference to "prominent family in Maryland", as widely reported in the media. Moreover, Luigi Mangione's relatives are involved in more than simply real estate. What disturbs me far more is that editors wish to delete any and all links to his family on Wikipedia, specifically the dedicated WP article Nicholas Mangione. The deletion seems to be squeamish oversensitivity (one editor's editorial summary said: "Shouldn't link to one person"), bias, or both. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I've encountered a lot of sniveling online whenever news networks bring up his family. Like, how dare they. And you're correct that the family has business interests beyond real estate. Jonathan f1 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"Prominent family", is almost as bad.--I am thinking the relevant section should be ordered something like: "His prominence or whatever", followed by naming his notable family members (and 'cousin', 'aunt' whatever). After that, fine, make a case for the "prominence" (in Maryland or whatever) of his family; are they 'on the first row, during inauguration for each governor', or is the "prominence" that someone in his family is a member at a country club.--Maybe the "prominence" is that 80% (or whatever) of the family members with college degrees - have it from Ivy League schools.--Focus of family: mother, father, siblings, and hot air about remote relatives. 2001:2020:323:E1D7:B052:B04:2CA2:999A (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:305:9450:3C87:760A:993D:114A

" a prominent local family", links to one person!--Yikes! Just go ahead and mention that person, and remove the link. Thank you in advance. 2001:2020:323:E1D7:B052:B04:2CA2:999A (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting BBC News article about the family with lots of detail. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crl3jkjxp75o

Tracing the powerful family roots of suspected killer Luigi MangioneItalic text 2 hours ago

Jessica Parker and Cai Pigliucci ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Manhattan Manhattan

The article lede currently states this occurred in "Manhattan Manhattan". This seems like a mistake. 2A07:A081:0:1883:F0D6:12A6:367F:37C5 (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, @InterstellarGamer12321. 2A07:A081:0:1883:F0D6:12A6:367F:37C5 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Name of suspect

Snow closing as include. Based on the wide publication of the suspect's name in reliable sources in today's papers, this sample of wikipedians believes the name of the suspect should be included. Further discussion seems unlikely to change the outcome consensus. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Should the name of the suspect of this killing be included in this article? wizzito | say hello! 07:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. The murder has gone extremely viral, especially on TikTok. His name is extremely known so any concerns of protecting his identity aren't really valid. 2600:8806:90A0:3B00:DC52:C339:1D55:3B4D (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Also,why include a page about Brian Thompson that describes many of the faults during his time as CEO and not have a page about the murderer that could expand on many of his motivations and activity online. It might be more important to have a page of the murderer instead of the victim. 2600:8806:90A0:3B00:DC52:C339:1D55:3B4D (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Include. WP:CRIME says cover perpetrators when the motivation/manner for the crime is unusual. In this scenario this is definitely the case given the nature of the killing and the sheer amount of press and popular discourse it is receiving. FWIW I don't think the shooter should have an article at this point, but just for his name to be included in this article. Also his name is covered overwhelmingly in RS, see: BBC, NYT, ABC, no point in even linking articles as it's everywhere you look... LVMH11 (talk) 07:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I ask users to refrain from adding the name until consensus is formed here. I've already reverted it once myself. I have no interest in the outcome of this RfC. BusterD (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes per LVMH11's arguments. I think we've well blown past the standards set by WP:BLPNAME. That being said, we should hold off on creating an article about the shooter for a couple weeks for a fuller perspective on their notability. Based5290 :3 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes because this individual has become a public figure. But we need to be extremely careful what information is added to the article about this individual. Even though this is a public figure, they still deserve a right to privacy. We do not want/cannot have trivial, speculative things added to this article. This article must not become a place of experts weighing in or a place of agendas being spotlighted. Also, no matter how guilty the individual seems, an arrest is not proof of wrongdoing. Kingturtle = (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note that suspect's name is already in his grandfather's bio which links to this article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I removed it from that article with a note explaining that we are awaiting a consensus here. Kingturtle = (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there some reason not to? Kire1975 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Nope. —Alalch E. 09:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia often errs on the side of caution, especially for living individuals, to maintain responsible and accurate reporting. Reasons not to share the name of this arrested person in this article may stem from several ethical, legal, and editorial reasons. Kingturtle = (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Adult person charged with murder, name widely disseminated, notable event, much coverage in the aftermath: No concerns (regarding the name as such). —Alalch E. 09:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should name him in the article but be sure to include language like "allegedly" as to continue to presume his innocence until formerly convicted in a court of law. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 12:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, at this point he has been charged with murder, news sources around the world have reported his name, and with his name all over social media (i.e. satisfies the threshold of public figure) Wikipedia should also follow suit and name him. Do note that presumption of innocence applies given he's only charged and not yet convicted. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Snow close. Of course it should be. There is no conceivable purpose being served by censoring ourselves from mentioning a name that was printed on the front pages on most US newspapers today. — JFHutson (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: once we add the name, we open ourselves up to a tremendous amount of BLP violations from people calling him something other than "suspect" Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:11, 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson/Archive_4&oldid=1264119704"