Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Suspect section of the article

The Suspect section of the article is going into too much detail about the suspect's life. Remember, this is an article about a killing, not an article about the suspect. Just because the media reports something does not mean we need to include it in this article. We have no responsibility to mimic what the news media is doing.

Here are some things of great concern about this section:

• The detailed personal and educational achievements (valedictorian, Ivy League degrees, etc.) are unnecessary and irrelevant until they have direct bearing on the case.
• His family's prominence (real estate, philanthropy) introduce bias and do not yet directly relate to the case.
• The inclusion of the suspect being reported missing by his mother and stopping social media activity in the summer of 2024 could be construed as implying guilt or suspicious behavior. Without direct relevance to the case, this can appear as leading the reader.
• Mentioning his last known residence and detailed career timeline could be seen as invasive. It is not yet relevant to the case.
• The involvement of his mother and her contact with the police also raises privacy concerns. Again, this is not yet relevant to the case.

I invite all of you to please think about this and provide your opinions on the matter. Thanks, Kingturtle = (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe Mangione should have his own page at this point. He is rather famous now. Tamezsus (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that with this level of information given, it suggests we should instead establish a separate page for Mangione, and trim down the suspect section in this article to only the details directly relevant to the killing. The section here is longer than that of quite a few local-level US politicians. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how concerned we are supposed to be with privacy for BLPs in general and for suspected perpetrators of crimes? The issue seems to be scope rather than privacy. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I found the section that talks about privacy https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. I don’t think the concerns listed are privacy concerns though. I don’t think his non notable family member names should be included. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Shell casing words do not match source

The article currently states that the casings were marked: deny, delay, depose. The ABC article used as source for this (29) instead says they were marked: deny, defend, depose. I checked an AP article that also states deny, defend, depose.

Should this be updated or is the news getting it wrong? Jelgoat (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It's the news initially getting it wrong and correcting what they got wrong. This was initially reported by ABC as "deny", "defend", "depose", but a day later, a CNN report came out, reporting on the findings in greater detail, saying that "delay" was inscribed on a cartridge and that the words are "delay", "deny", "depose"; CNN mentioned the initial ABC report. WP:RSBREAKING often contain inaccuracies and editors favor reports that are not exactly breaking news, and therefore we favor the later CNN article over the earlier ABC one. Edit: I have added two sources that clarify this. —Alalch E. 09:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional sources, it's great having an AP update reference that corrects their earlier mistake in particular. Jelgoat (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

section called Possible motives

I am very concerned about the Possible motives section. All the possible motives are 100% speculation. Until we have a court case in which lawyers put forth possible motives, we cannot list possible motives. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we cannot report the possible motives written about in reliable secondary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a fine line, but because the suspect is alive and not convicted, we need to be especially cautious. We need to avoid presenting motives in a way that could be defamatory or prejudicial. If it is something a prosecutor on the case says, that would be okay. If it is an opinion from an "expert", that is highly speculative. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it's a fine line. We don't want to just throw in everyone's speculation, but at the same time we don't want to end up with a section that is just statements from police and prosecutors, who obviously have a professional interest in crafting a narrative that supports a certain legal outcome. I have wondered for some time if we should delete the sentences in the body and lede that amount to "police believe..." or anything similar, unless it is well-balanced by other perspectives. Einsof (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the balance would come from the defense lawyer? Right now we just have police statements. Once they go to court, that would be when additional information comes out. Wafflefrites (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. I'd say the section is mostly fine as is, since almost everything is discussed in secondary sources, and the police statements are couched in "police believe". guninvalid (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We can include anything from the defence lawyer once sources report on that. Cortador (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Luigi Mangione article

Thread retitled from "Draft on Luigi".

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've made a draft on Luigi Draft:Luigi Mangione If you would like to contribute please do. PopularGames (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the work you put in so far, but he does not need an article. He is not notable beyond this incident I can almost guarantee it will be declined to be approved when moved to mainspace. People like Adam Lanza, Jesse Osborne, Anthony Dwayne McRae, etc all do not have their own articles; it simply stays in the main event article. It is possible that in the future he may become notable enough for his own article due to events surrounding the trial, etc, but for now he is just a person of interest and if he is arrested and charged in connection to the crime it'll still be best to have the info remain in this article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Darth Stabro. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

People like Adam Lanza, Jesse Osborne, Anthony Dwayne McRae, etc., were not subjects of nation-wide manhunts. Mangione was. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Being the subject of a nation-wide manhunt ... for an infamous murder ... is, ummmmmm, irrelevant. Because ZimZalaBim on Wikipedia said so. LOL. So glad that I ignore that $2.75 Wikipedia donation appeal, when it pops up. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus. If you don't like the consensus, you're welcome to make an account and join the discussion more fully. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Right now, I'm at a weak keep for the Luigi article. A burst of news coverage isn't enough, but if the news and other secondary sources keep covering the ongoing legal proceedings and other things about Luigi, that would clearly warrant a standalone article. HorseDonkey (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

To add, the donation appeal is for the Wikimedia Foundation. This article is under the English Wikipedia. Two related, but different groups. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that it's probably imprudent to rule out the possibility of him getting an article just yet. His trial is likely to yield more press coverage, which could add to the importance of his actions. His early life, political beliefs, alleged crime, manhunt, and upcoming trial seems enough to constitute an article. Trilomonk (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

but did we not give Ryan routh an article even though barely anyone remembers him, as mangione was successful in his assassination, doesn't that make him noteworthy enough for a separate article? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wesley Routh. This was a discussion to delete the article you mentioned. The discussion was closed as No Consensus. The main point of discussion appears to have been WP:BLP1E and the condition that appears to have mattered the most was the third condition: The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. It is not clear if the same condition is met or not for this individual. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

He should have an article. He's quickly becoming a known name in the public eye. However, I think we should wait a bit more until the trial begins and more information comes out. At that point, there will be too much information that we will need to have a separate article to avoid excessive clutter on this page. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Category:Assassins by nationality Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

---

Why is there not yet a biography page, and a link to his manifesto? Fustbariclation (talk) 12:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fustbariclation: I moved your comment from the top of the page to here as I think you are addressing the same thing as the users above. WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E may be of interest. I am not sure if the manifesto is released to the public Justiyaya 14:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that Luigi Mangione doesn't have his own article. Thomas Matthew Crooks has his own article and is only notable for one event (the Trump assassination attempt). Mangione is getting way more coverage in the media and reliable sources than Crooks ever will. Some1 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 1 (Luigi Mangione article)

Thread retitled from " Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione?".

Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione?

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

As of today, Wikipedia is not allowing the creation of a Luigi Mangione page, but is instead diverting to the Killing of Brian Thompson page. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you be more specific with what "Wikipedia is not allowing" means. Is that based on a policy or on a consensus that was made? Kingturtle = (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Luigi Mangione is protected, that's probably what they mean by "not allowed" 331dot (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware of Draft:Luigi Mangione? 331dot (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a convincing argument, and there is a tendency to leap in and create articles that have problems with WP:BLP1E. Personally I wouldn't support a separate article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear- I'm not arguing for a separate article, just pointing out the existence of the draft as a counter to the idea it is "not being allowed". 331dot (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As I have replied here, the Dylann Roof article should not have been created at that time per WP:PERPETRATOR. It is possible that a Luigi Mangione page could be created in the future but per the policy, this would be when the coverage is not contemporaneous and when there is an actual conviction. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all your answers. I don't have an opinion in the matter. I was more interested in the process. "Wikipedia is not allowing" makes it sound like something or someone above us made the decision, when in actuality, it was wikipedians who made the decision. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes - there is a group of wikipedia editors making the decision. I suppose that editors can contribute to/improve the Draft:Luigi Mangione article until it is deemed acceptable to publish.

This article is needed - just as we have articles on Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, in order to tell the full story ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There simply isn't enough information on Mangione yet to justify a separate article. Everything substantial in that draft is contained in this main article.

Adam Lanza, perpetrator of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, doesn't even have his own article. Patrick Crusius of the 2019 El Paso Walmart shooting doesn't have his own article. Especially given the delicacy of people perhaps *wanting* infamy, giving in to this and granting their own article in cases like this should be very delicately considered. He shouldn't be lionized, nor should there be any appearance of or opportunity for that. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's inherently difficult to compare Luigi Mangione to other "shooters" but I think your examples are apples to oranges here. Those examples are mass shooters that did not induce a national manhunt. The indiscriminate nature of their actions (and less complex motivations) places them into a different part of the American political zeitgeist.

They are most often brought up in regards to gun violence and public safety, a field where they unfortunately have several more notable peers that *do* have articles.

What Luigi did was more comparable to a targeted assassination of a powerful figure and is thus more similar to Lee Harvey Oswald, etc. Trilomonk (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Would Brian Thompson be considered a “renowned national or international figure”? I had never heard of him nor is he a common household name. Even now I still have to google the name of the late ceo. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I was more making an assertion that whether or not Luigi receives an article should be considered under the standard of "assassin" rather than "mass shooter" (those labels are reductive, I know, but you get my point) / Trilomonk (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think right now we are trying to follow WP:PERPETRATOR. If an article is to be created due to the current article becoming too long, it would have to meet one of two criteria: if Thompson was renowned nationally/internationally or if “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.” Wafflefrites (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

No. Brian Thompson is not a "renowned national or international figure. "

Thompson is notable only (if at all) for a single event (that is neither significant nor unusual) - this wouldn't even be an article under the policy's exclusion criteria (and is likely to be deleted in the not-so-distant future).

WP:BLP1E Pimprncess (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a delusion to think that Mangione does not / will not merit an article. Talk about being a day late and a dollar short. Sheeeeesh. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If we "talk about a day late and a dollar short" most likely the subject lacks merit for an article.

Turns out "it is a delusion to think" Wikipedia is a newspaper.

review relevant policies:

WP:RECENTISM

WP:NOTNEWS

WP:ISNOT

"a day late and a dollar short" = belongs on wikinews site instead of wikipedia Pimprncess (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 2 (Luigi Mangione article)

Thread retitled from "Draft: Luigi Mangione".

I've already posted this once, but I'm going to post it again because I need help in making the article. Draft: Luigi Mangione PopularGames (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Skimmed the early life section and there are many grammar errors. Should be *part of a notable family in Maryland, owned many *businesses, also *bought another country club (and you missed a period after this line). Maybe give this another proofread. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

and "Firaxis" spelling, "Civilization IV" shouldn't be in quotes, etc.

I will again state my opposition to the creation of such an article, as well. He is only notable for this. He has not gained independent notoriety. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That's another thing I was going to mention =if he's even notable for his own article. I think we should wait until the smoke clears. If he fades away when people lose interest in this case, then it's the case that's notable, not him. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also tagging @ProfessorKaiFlai. Please read the guideline WP:PERPETRATOR. I know you gave the example of Dylan Roof being an article that was created the next day after the Charleston church shooting (the timing of that article was created against guideline). There is also Daniel Penny, who does not currently have a Wikipedia BLP, from Killing of Jordan Neely, as well as countless other LPs who have been convicted of crime. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

We also have WP:BLPCRIME, which is an enforceable policy. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

BLPCRIME has nothing to do with the draft article. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"He lived in Honolulu until the killing" is not assuming innocence.

"While on his Twitter (X) account he had an X-ray picture of a spine. Which was posted during 2016" is not good grammar. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Brian Thompson was murdered; Luigi Mangione is the suspect. There's simply no need for editors to create a separate Mangione-the-folk-hero article, so long as a WP search for "Luigi Mangione" automatically redirects to this article. While the life and life problems of the suspect should be discussed, they seem quite appropriate as part of a section in this article. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does Thomas Matthew crooks have a page but not Luigi. 2600:1008:B173:732D:CC9D:C0FF:FED9:6BEC (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Matthew Crooks is not a living person. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki-Notable - yeah, the title (article) "Luigi Mangione", is notable.--Just write the article without going thru the ' formal Draft process', and then click "Publish"/Save. (Showing your cards early, can only hurt "your" article's case.)--There is a fair chance that wiki-lawyering will get the first version of the article, Deleted (no matter how well, one actually makes the article).--What makes him stand out, among murder suspects? The entire body of commentary done by notable anchormen/-women, journalists, other commentators and politicians? Yeah, that is likely a big part of his notability. But also research being done, which has a strong relationship to him (or his actions).--Timing: if you can, then publish "your" article when there is a new development in the case, or new and significant info about the suspect or info about the alleged preparations for the crime.--If some of this post is helpful to you, then fine. 2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, if another wikipedia gets an article that looks like its going to get kept - that might also be an okay time to consider publishing. 2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6

The timing is also actually covered in the guidelines and policy, if you want to read that again. In regards to enforceable policy it goes beyond wikilawyering. See WP:BLPCT. BLPs are contentious topics per arbitration enforcement committee. With contentious topics, you must “comply with all applicable policies and guidelines”. Wafflefrites (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It's way too early to assess his notability as an individual. He's being covered in relation to this case right now, no more or less.

Want another example? Scott Peterson doesn't have his own Wiki page, he's only mentioned on the killing of Laci Peterson article, because that's why he's known (he was previously a fertilizer salesman). And that case was arguably more of a national sensation than this one, and even distracted attention from the war in Iraq. Same thing happened there -wall to wall coverage of Scott Peterson, his affair, his whereabouts, his family. And yet, as time went on, it became increasingly clear that all that attention was generated from that case and only that case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be better to hold off on creating a separate Luigi Mangione article for now. A separate article would basically be a repeat of the whole 'Suspect' section (and other content) from this article, plus random trivia (e.g. the video games he played). Some1 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

'All the time', it so happens that people say "don't create the article now", and after a Deletion-discussion, an article gets kept.--Go ahead, and publish article, and make "your" case in the article.--He is still front page news in my country. Today's headline, linked from front page: 'Luigi (26) is getting massive amounts of support -
Competitions, monetary support and protests - the U.S. is supporting the alleged killer'
Link, https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/93GvyW/luigi-mangione-26-faar-massiv-stoette-paa-sosiale-medier

Scott Peterson in comparison? Nah. The wiki-notability of Charles Sobhraj, might be a closer comparison. 2001:2020:319:C51C:3521:5326:133:7329 (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 /2001:2020:319:C51C:3521:5326:133:7329 (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how a serial killer in Asia is more analogous than another murder case that generated widespread public interest within the US and interest in the suspect's personal life. Are you trolling? Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Foreigners hardly give a flip (or remember or even have read or heard) about the crime life of Scott Peterson.--Mangione is a different story. I can spoonfeed you, after someone publishes an article about Mangione, and the spoonfeeding will be done in the AfD/RfD.--Now, if user:Jonathan f1, can bring the insults, down a notch, then that will be fine.--Discussing an article that has not even been published, seems like somewhat like giving a critique (now) about Eminem's July 4 concert for next year. 2001:2020:303:AA01:B9B2:F66E:F07D:E70A (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:3521:5326:133:7329

The Wikipedia article is currently semi protected to prevent disruption (for example, IPs who may not be as familiar with the policies). Editors can edit the draft Luigi article (recently it was expanded and improved by a more experienced editor).

The Wiki guidelines very strongly warn us about presumption of innocence for biographies of living persons accused of crimes and when articles should be created for those persons.

“* 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) 22:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Be bold. Write about the investigation. Write about stuff that the 'other two articles' are not covering as well. Follow the money.--(If anyone wants to waste their time, then a formal Draft, is a good idea.) What is not a waste of time, is to publish something - so that everyone has a chance to "vote" with arguments, for its support, or arguments to shoot it down. 2001:2020:303:AA01:450D:E171:B135:E85C (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6

Another thing: There is not much point, in doing a major rewrite, of an article after it has been published. (At least not about this topic.)--If the first version gets shot down, so be it.--A new version can be made, and the major rewrite can be a part of that.--Will many voice their opposition to my arguments? Of course (as is their right, to come with opposing views). 2001:2020:303:AA01:643C:BFAC:6C2F:D196 (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6

Cont. 3 (Luigi Mangione article)

Thread retitled from "Wrongful Delete of Mangione (article), December 16".

Wrongful 'delete or merge or whatever', today.
wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Luigi_Mangione&diff=1263448163&oldid=1263446879
The justification was dated 10 December; that 'verdict' is only for the version on that day (or copies of that version). 2001:2020:32F:E6A2:CC28:ED4F:4CA3:708C (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What? I have no idea what you're saying; the redirect was justified. E_F⁵ 19:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored it. If someone thinks the subject doesn't merit an article, they're more than welcome to demonstrate consensus for that at WP:AFD. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione. Some1 (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

At some point a separate article will be justified as more information comes and his section should be spun out. But I disagree that this article should not have major emphases on the suspect and victim. Crime writing always gives complete descriptions of both. TFD (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lead changes

Despite (by my count!) 8 people opposing Some1's preferred wording, which implies that a majority of Americans support the killing, he keeps reverting it to it. He argues that a majority of Americans support the killings and that there's no issue of present balance in the article. This has gone to the point where he's actively removing any tags related to NPOV or bias from the article. At this point I can't see it as a good faith difference of perspective and it's more like activism. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored the lead to the status quo version before your recent POV-pushing changes. That is not "my preferred wording". And enough with the false accusations or claims-- 8 people opposing? Where? And I've never "argue[d] that a majority of Americans support the killings and that there's no issue of present balance in the article" nor am I "actively removing any tags related to NPOV or bias from the article." Even my revert still has the Unbalanced tag still in it.[1] If you're going to make claims like that, please provide evidence (in the form of WP:DIFFS). Multiple editors on this talk and in the article history have noted your POV pushing on the article, so please discuss your changes here before EWing to your preferred version. Some1 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not POV pushing.

You think that this:

Online and social media reactions to the killing included contempt and mockery toward Thompson and UnitedHealth Group, as well as sympathy and praise for the assailant. More broadly, social media users criticized the U.S. healthcare system, and some users characterized the killing as deserved or justified.[undue weight? – discuss] These attitudes were related to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry in general – primarily the strategy to deny coverage to clients. In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients who were denied coverage by insurance companies. Some public officials expressed dismay and offered condolences to Thompson's family. Inquiries about protective services and security for CEOs and corporate executives surged following the killing.

Is more neutral than:

The killing was widely denounced by politicians across the political spectrum, including by Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Amy Klobuchar, and Tim Walz. Scientific opinion polls taken of Americans have found that an overwhelming majority oppose the killing, believe that Mangione is guilty, and would vote for his conviction if they were a juror. Online, a notable social media campaign reacting to the killing with contempt and mockery towards Thompson's death, alongside revived criticism of the American healthcare system and healthcare insurers as a whole. Copycat threats against business leaders by others referencing the killing have occurred. Inquiries about protective services and security for CEOs and corporate executives surged following the killing.

Seriously? The vast majority of users here have already pointed out the problems with your preferred version on talk. It is actively misleading to readers if the article claims that the predominant reaction of Americans was glee, mockery, and celebration. Emerson is an established and well-regarded pollster. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You responded negatively to my comments on your talk page in User talk:RomanianObserver41#Adding new information to articles should be done in the body first. Since then, you have refused to follow standard editorial practices, attempting to impose your version of the lead section out of order. After you were blocked due to edit warring on this article and your block expired, you continued to repeat similar comments on this talk page and made the same types of edits. You have not considered whether adopting the advised normal approach to content development would yield your desired results, nor have you pursued the usual methods of WP:Dispute resolution. Ultimately, you resorted to making accusations. —Alalch E. 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I liked your previous version that had the word “polarized” because that can be found in maybe at least 3-4 sources, if not more. I do not like the new version because I am not sure how much of it can be verifiable by in line citations, which are good to have in case there are synth issues or content disputes. I think you really need to read the Wikipedia manual of style because you are not complying or understanding the guidelines is causing some editing disputes. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR says “Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.”

I recommend you WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES to avoid original research and disputes. The lead normally doesn’t need sources, but in this case it seems like synthesis of material is the main complaint from others so I recommend you make sure each sentence is verifiable. Wafflefrites (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely undue to imply or suggest a majority of Americans, or even a large portion, do, solely because of social media posts. The polls taken on this show support to be a pretty fringe minority view, and by overweighting that viewpoint, this article is presenting an inaccurate image of public response. Toa Nidhiki05 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I restored the shorter mention of the polling stuff in the lead paragraph, which now just mentions that polling reactions towards the killer and the killing are overall negative. The polling stuff are three paragraphs in the overall fairly long Reactions section; we don't need to break it down in the lead paragraph again. Cortador (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And your version is problematic for many reasons:

• widely denounced by politicians across the political spectrum, including by Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Amy Klobuchar, and Tim Walz. is WP:SYNTHESIS and we don't need to name-drop all the politicians in the lead like that.
• Scientific opinion polls taken of Americans have found that an overwhelming majority oppose the killing, believe that Mangione is guilty, and would vote for his conviction if they were a juror. is giving WP:UNDUE weight to that one Scott Rasmussen/RMG Research poll.
• RS don't call online and social media reactions "a notable social media campaign" and don't characterize it as such.
• Copycat threats against business leaders by others referencing the killing have occurred. is misleading and gives UNDUE weight to the one Florida woman incident.

Again, what I did was restore the status quo paragraph before your changes; that's not my "preferred version" of the lead, but what the paragraph was before your problematic, non-NPOV changes. Some1 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The phrase "a notable social media campaign" stood out to me as well, as if to imply that all the online anger was being pushed out by a troll farm somewhere. That's really not the picture that emerges from the sources and I don't know why it was worded that way. I'll also point out that the reverted version conflated Emerson's sampling of "voters" with "Americans", when those are not the same population. Einsof (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Most American polls sample voters. Statistically, there is not really a huge difference between "voter" polls and polls of the populace, but either are more reliable than social media outrage, as the internet is not real life. Toa Nidhiki05 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No one is saying that the social media outrage is reliable, as we are not relying on the expressions of the outrage as a source to support any of the statements made in the article. —Alalch E. 01:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm getting the sense from this comment, and from your previous comment above, that you think we are supposed to weight the viewpoints in our articles by their prominence among the (American?) public. But that is very much not what the policy on due weight instructs us to do. The policy instructs us to weight viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [published, reliable] sources, not in proportion to editors' suppositions about how the public feels. Einsof (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The article does, indeed, appear to overvalue random social media posts over actual public opinion. This is a problem, as it could mislead readers as to the actual public sentiment. It's important that we don't overvalue social media content, even content reported on by reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No value is ascribed to social media posts. The statements in the article are not derived from social media posts. When the social media phenomenon resulting from this event is described, it is described consistent with how reliable sources describe it, and while you have described those sources above as as bunch of random articles about social media posts, the articles are not random, they are all about the same thing and cover it directly and in detail. —Alalch E. 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of this? There are enormous differences demographically between registered voters in the US and all Americans at large. Specifically we know that in states where registration is harder or has more stringent requirements, black people or people of color tend to not be registered as much as white people. Voter registration also differs by age. Do you have evidence that voter polls and polls of the general populace would have the same outcome here? The polls we do have already show a gap in support that changes with age. Samwightt (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have evidence it's not? You're the one making the claim things are wildly different. Regardless, even a poll of voters (which most American polls use) is far more reliable than the random social media posts news outlets are speculating over. Toa Nidhiki05 03:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You are using the word "reliable" in a way that has no currency on Wikipedia. You seem to mean it as a shorthand for "a reliable synopsis of public opinion", which is not what WP:RELIABILITY is actually concerned with. What matters here is that we are providing an accurate synopsis of what has been published in reliable sources, with due weight to the relative prominence of various viewpoints in those sources. Einsof (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet we cast sources into different categories. Sources that are based mostly on social media posts will be valued less than those based on scientific polling; this is a standard used in, say, movie articles. It's why the article on Star Wars: The Last Jedi doesn't treat social media outrage as genuine, comparative to the actual polls showing high public support. See also: Selina Zito "I went to a midwestern coffee shop" type articles.

If polls are saying one thing, and social media another, we should weight sources relying on analysis of social media posts. Even if that coverage comes from reliable sources, it's still of far, far lower quality. We can't make sweeping conclusions about public sympathy for an alleged murderer, other than that some sympathy exists, without the crucial context that polling shows the vast majority do not approve. Toa Nidhiki05 04:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If sources decide to cover social media reactions more than polls, we give coverage of social media reactions more weight. It's as simple as that. Cortador (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If sources contradict the reality presented by polling, then no, we shouldn't. Toa Nidhiki05 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As per WP:TRUTH, whatever weigh you think those polls should have does not override sources, and neither does it override what sources state (and we have a lot of sources covering the reactions to this killing). Cortador (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are covering social media reactions to the killing, and many are naively assuming they represent majority opinion. We are under no obligation to publish unverified claims.

The Rasmussen poll was published by a secondary source, the Miami Herald, and Emerson's poll, which we all agree is a top-notch RS for polling, is generally consistent with Rasmussen, right down to the generational divide. What's interesting here is not just that the younger generations are less likely to find the killing “completely unacceptable,” but they’re also the least likely to utilize health services. Seems like support for the killer is not only a predominately online phenomenon, but most prevalent among demographics that are generally healthy and have minimal contact with the healthcare sector.

Of course I'm not suggesting we publish OR, but it's food for thought. I would edit the reaction section with caution and avoid, when possible, associating the mob on social media with disgruntled healthcare consumers. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The Rasmussen poll was not published by Miami Herald; that was another poll, the not-especially-credible one, per a talk section further up.

About "unverified claims": None of us are in a position to appraise the actual reporting of journalists working for reputable media organizations as "unverified claims" (I'm contrasting a media outlet stating something in its own voice to quoted statements, embedded tweets and similar). We can come up with some editorial logic for not including something if a particular article seems suspicious, appears to contain inaccuracies, journalistic errors, etc., but calling legitimate reporting "unverified claims" isn't that logic. It is verifiable that there has been a highly noteworthy thing going on on the Internet. You yourself say that there has been an online phenomenon. Well that's what the article states as well.

About the association of the mob with disgruntled healthcare consumers—what would you say about the following passage in an NYT article ("Torrent of Hate for Health Insurance Industry Follows C.E.O.’s Killing"): The shooting has also prompted patients and family members to weigh in publicly, sharing wrenching horror stories of insurance claim reimbursement stagnation and denials — painful recountings of insurance company interactions that have become all too familiar in a nation facing a health care crisis? —Alalch E. 17:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who linked the Miami Herald and was told it was the same Rasmussen poll, which was the same one in the Napolitan news service, although I may be confusing Rasmussen/Napolitan with Center for Strategic Politics -okay, fine, whatever.

Every editorial decision to include/exclude news commentary is some type of appraisal. There are people here who don't want to include the poll but do want to include news reports about unverified social media claims, and others who think polling is more significant.

"None of us are in a position to appraise the actual reporting of journalists working for reputable media organizations as "unverified claims""

Oh really? Well that's exactly what happened on the RS noticeboard when I inquired about the Miami Herald piece[2]. This happens all the time on here, and oftentimes it makes sense but sometimes it doesn't. To act like these journalists are conducting deep investigations into anonymous stories on social media is just silly. None of what's been said on social media has been verified -the reactions are the opinions of mostly anonymous users. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the NYT piece you just cited -sure, there are "healthcare horror" stories that are legitimate as well as predictable. When you're dealing with people's health and health outcomes, there are bound to be unhappy campers, which we find even in countries where healthcare is entirely government-run (here's Bloomberg on Britain's NHS: Delays, Waiting Lists and Horror Stories[3]). But a related NYT piece also cites polls showing majority satisfaction with private health insurance[4], and cautions against reading too much into social media reactions.

Your article also attributes the negative sentiment to private insurers "denying claims," when in fact no one knows how often this occurs on private plans.[5][6]. The only data we have comes from public plans that UnitedHealthcare interacts with, like Medicare Advantage, where denial rates are bound to be much higher than the rate at which private claims are denied. So yes, that's an unverified claim.

The Emerson poll shows support for the killer is strongest among the 18 -29 demographic, and one doesn't suspect this is over having their claims denied. Half of them are probably on their parents' insurance, and few will have serious health issues. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you've mixed it up, and, sorry, but it isn't a "whatever". The distinction is a key one. If the Miami Herald article had been about the Rasmussen poll, that article would have been used as a source 100% and there would have been no questions about including the Rasmusen poll (which received no secondary coverage, so there have been questions). Editorial logic is that a newspaper reporting on the results on an opinion poll from a well-known pollster makes for a statement about a noteworthy fact that is due for inclusion. The Miami Herald however reports on the poll of a totally unknown and non-credible pollster, and is the only RS doing so. While there is no doubt that they are accurately reporting what the pollster claims their results are, there's nothing for us to go by to say that the existence of this poll is a noteworthy fact. There are many details surrounding this event that haven't been covered in this encyclopedia-style summary and that is one of them. On the other hand, the information about the Internet phenomenon in the reaction to the killing is sourced with vastly more sources that comprise vast journalistic labor: original reporting, analyses, transformative commentary... That is why the Internet thing is covered more and with greater ease for us editors here. —Alalch E. 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case, vast journalistic labor =repeating what's been said on social media. At least with the poll you could say there's a chance the Miami Herald analyzed it before publication, but with social media you're dealing with mostly anonymous commentary. I'm not saying don't include the reactions, only to take extra precautions in how it's presented. If a journalist wants to look foolish by taking social media opinion at face value, we're under no obligation as an encyclopedia to repeat his error. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If the media reporting on random social media posts is noteworthy, so is them reporting on a scientific opinion poll. Toa Nidhiki05 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The media is only covering the Emerson College poll so far (Axios and The Hill); the other two polls don't have secondary RS coverage. Some1 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Academic commentators

I'd like to hear what others think of this. I'm happy and willing to go with whatever the consensus is. I just would like to hear the opinions of additional editors.

I added the following:

University of Pennsylvania professor Julia Alekseyeva said, “I have never been prouder to be a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.” She also said that Mangione was the “icon we all need and deserve.” She later said of her comments, “These were completely insensitive and inappropriate... and I retract them wholly. I do not condone violence and I am genuinely regretful of any harm the posts have caused.” Jeffrey Kallberg, the deputy dean of Penn’s School of Arts and Sciences, responded by saying, “Her comments regarding the shooting of Brian Thompson in New York City were antithetical to the values of both the School of Arts and Sciences and the University of Pennsylvania, and they were not condoned by the School or the University” and “Upon reflection, Assistant Professor Alekseyeva has concurred that the comments were insensitive and inappropriate and has retracted them... We welcome this correction and regret any dismay or concern this may have caused.”

User:Bluethricecreamman deleted it and commented, "WP:UNDUE to include a minor academic controversy on here... not really convinced this deserves a mention on an already long article."

I think it's worthy of inclusion due to the large number of sources that have reported on it. I'd like to hear what others think, and I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is. Thank you for your comments.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the article. Julia Alekseyeva is not notable. And the dispute or controversy is minor. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think they may be due for conclusion. The quotes are significant insofar as they're an example of an otherwise intelligent, responsible academic getting caught up in social media hysteria and using poor judgement. She seems to have quoted the movie The Dark Night Rises (ie "Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now."), which is hilarious considering the villain in that movie manipulated a mob of economic populists (much like Mangione's supporters), which Batman then had to fight in that iconic Wall Street riot scene. Many took that film to be a critique of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and populism in general.[7][8]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

i feel that if we are in the territory of negative reaction to the postive reaction to accused killer in a killing of article, we are several degrees of freedom from the main point of the article.

this article should not be about every reaction or hot take folks have and the backlash to that hot take… maybe a different article? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

So, the general editing trend here is to report on random social media commentary because, reliable sources, but heavily scrutinize contradictory information that's also been published by reliable sources. I'd remind everyone that a man was murdered and a mob on the internet reacted by claiming his company was responsible for "thousands of deaths." If an academic fell victim to this mentality but is now retracting earlier comments, and this is reported in RSes, it may be significant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

that last bit about including it to condemn cheering violence from the public masses is wp:rightgreatwrongs territory and is not a valid reason for inclusion. this info can be part of a different article about reactions to the murder (which could be useful at this point). i removed it as it is very ancillary from the main info of this article, as per WP:DUE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

actually, not sure an explicit article about "reaction to killing of brian thompson" is warranted right now too. Could be a case of WP:RECENTISM. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Alekseyeva ia a professor in English and Cinema and Media Studies. She's not an expert in crime or health insurance or economics. Kingturtle = (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As one would expect from a remark like this.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources appear to be covering this in detail. I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned. Toa Nidhiki05 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think for any academic reactions, the person needs to be a notable academic and should be an expert in a field related to the killing. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Wow! That's a lot of comments. Thank you to everyone who offered their opinion on this. The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Overlap between this article and Luigi Mangione

As many have pointed out, there is a significant amount of overlapping info between the #Suspect subheading on this article and the article on Luigi.

Now that the AfD for that article seems bound to return a Keep decision, I believe we should work on moving most info about him to that article and making the #Suspect section more of a summary, so that work on this text can be centralized on a single location. What do you think? CVDX (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The last two paragraphs of the #Possible_motives_and_views (regarding his political and religious views) could be removed from this article as they're unrelated to the killing. (The two paragraphs are already included in the Luigi Mangione article so nothing needs to be 'moved' per se, just removed from the section in this article.) Some1 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ken Klippenstein's claims

Personal news blogs are not the best sources for information. Although Klippenstein is an experienced reporter, by publishing stories on his own website means he does not fall under the same scrutiny a reporter for a newspaper encounters. Self-publishing skips editorial reviews, fact-checking teams, and legal oversight. This can result in less accountability and a greater risk of errors or bias, making independent reporting less reliable than work vetted through established news organizations.

Can any of his claims be substantiated by another sources? Or have any of his claims been reported by any news organizations? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, such sources should be added to beef up the legitimacy of Klippenstein's claims. If the answer is no to either of those questions, maybe Klippenstein's claims are questionable. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search and found https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9nxee2r0do which does mention the handwritten manifesto and quotes it. Ken Klippenstein may have been the original publisher, but the manifesto itself is obviously fine. The BBC article doesn't go into the rest of his claims in any particular detail though so it's probably worth getting a second source for all of them at least. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with @guninvalid that we could avoid using the Klippenstein source. CVDX (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Klippenstein is generally a reliable source in my view, but he still is self-pub. I have no issue with using him as a source, so long as there's another secondary source repeating his claim. guninvalid (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)