Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson

Infobox photo

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

Some sources have since circulated photos of the alleged shooter, though a name has not yet been identified that I have seen. If that photo is ever confirmed, we could use it. guninvalid (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be best practice to use a photo immediately before or after the shooting. The photos of the alleged shooter at other locations would be more appropriate in the body of the article. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, best practice is to wait for a conviction before posting the suspect's face. Alpacaaviator (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Trail has gone cold. He will never be found StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Using a still from the CCTV video seems to be what most editors want, and seems like an obvious choice as it is an image of the event itself. —Alalch E. 14:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Assassination"

Thread retitled from "Reliable sources aren't calling this an assassination".

It was already agreed at Brian Thompson (businessman) that reliable sources aren't referring to this as an assassination, so we shouldn't either. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That's why this article isn't called an assassination. If you'd like to make a move request, please discuss on the existing move requests in Talk: Brian Thompson (businessman). guninvalid (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Guninvalid It was until about 10 minutes ago until I moved it and replaced all uses of assassination in the article (except for one direct quote). I am explaining why I made those changes and making it clear that they shouldn't be reverted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

a number of reliable sources have referred to it as an assassination. Wikipedia editors seem to have the tendency to heavily cherry pick articles. 2601:447:CE00:8AB0:CE30:1D34:E3CC:6C37 (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are:

"...Dawn Assassination." New York Times + "CEO assassination..." ABC (local affiliate) + "CEO's assassination..." Newsweek + "...before shooting assassination." Irish Times via MSN + "Thompson’s family was devastated by the news of his apparent assassination." Boston Herald + "...the apparent assassination..." Newsweek (again, but a different article) + "...assassination-style slaying." NYT (again, different article) + "Rep. Dean Phillips, of Minnesota’s 3rd District, wrote that he was '...horrified by the assassination of my constituent, Brian Thompson...'" Representative Phillips via X via CNN
That being said… I don't believe WP:Assassination supports the title of "Assassination of Brian Thompson." WP supports "killing of…" until either/or a conviction is made (at which point WP:MURDEROF takes us to "Murder of Brian Thompson") or sources begin regularly referring to this as an assassination (looks like it may happen, but it is currently used too sporadically to justify it here, IMO).MWFwiki (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A teratocide is a more accurate description. Fustbariclation (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC) Fustbariclation (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

TIL of WP:MURDEROF. I had come to suggest using that title, but then saw your comment. Hàlian (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC) Hàlian (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. ("Assassination")

I believe this article would be best moved to Assassination of Brian Thompson, because this act targeted the CEO of a company, and not a random civilian.

I am not making a Move Request at this time, I'm merely asking why we are using "Killing" instead of "Assassination". Do we need to know the assassin's motive? What information is missing for this event to be called an assassination? It seems like "Killing" inappropriately paints the act as wonton and random, but the use of a silenced weapon, the plan to lie in wait at the specific spot Thompson would be, and the plan to escape feels more like an assassination plan. Please let me know what I am (or the sources are) missing. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@RobotGoggles See the section #Reliable sources aren't calling this an assassination where I already discussed this. We go by reliable sources. Until/unless the majority of reliable sources the refer to it as an assassination, we should not. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources have referred to it as an assassination. Wikipedia editors seem to have the tendency to cherry pick articles. 2600:1014:B0C3:2D47:A9B6:ED5D:E948:53DE (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

A number of reliable sources have referred to it as an assassination. Wikipedia editors seem to have the tendency to cherry pick articles. 2601:447:CE00:8AB0:CE30:1D34:E3CC:6C37 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This is pure conjecture on your part. Please refrain from introducing your preconceived biases to the discussion. 136.52.31.24 (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why so many are adamantly opposed to referring to this as an assassination, at least within the body of the article. Sources are indeed using the term:
"...Dawn Assassination." New York Times + "CEO assassination..." ABC (local affiliate) + "CEO's assassination..." Newsweek + "...before shooting assassination." Irish Times via MSN + "Thompson’s family was devastated by the news of his apparent assassination." Boston Herald + "...the apparent assassination..." Newsweek (again, but a different article) + "...assassination-style slaying." NYT (again, different article) + "Rep. Dean Phillips, of Minnesota’s 3rd District, wrote that he was '...horrified by the assassination of my constituent, Brian Thompson...'" Representative Phillips via X via CNN

That' being said… I don't believe WP:Assassination supports the title of "Assassination of Brian Thompson." WP supports "killing of…" until either/or a conviction is made (at which point WP:MURDEROF takes us to "Murder of Brian Thompson") or sources begin regularly referring to this as an assassination (looks like it may happen, but it is currently used too sporadically to justify it here, IMO).

MWFwiki (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not the "common established name." The fact the victim was targetted not random is irrelevant since most homicides are targetted. Also, subjects are consiered innocent till proved guilty in Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

lol since then are victims innocent until proven guilty? I spent a weekend reading the talk pages of the duke lacrosse case and Wikipedia has repeatedly and utterly failed to hold themselves to that standard. 2601:18F:801:1D20:880C:5091:930C:94FD (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"Assassination" come on, this isn't Tupac or Biggie Smalls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

See also

There are five or six items listed in the "See also" section. They all deal with various aspects of health insurance. That list seems odd in an article about the murder of Thompson. No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices."

This is untrue. Many RS have made this link. Firecat93 (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Plus, given the wording on the shell casings... I would think that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is in play here. If you can find me an intelligent, honest, informed, disinterested, and sane human person who can look me in the eye and say that they truly believe that there's any reasonable level of doubt on this, that'd be different maybe. But there is no such person. Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Police authorities have consistently said "we don't know the motive". This very article itself says "motive unknown". In any event, the See also section seems to have a lot of (i.e., an inordinate amount of) irrelevant entries about health insurance topics. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The entries in the See Also section that you are referring to directly relate to several parts of the article, including the Response section. Firecat93 (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Let's add 20 more! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? The items listed are directly related to the subject of the article. If you have an argument against the inclusion of a particular entry, please explain. Firecat93 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, it's clear what the motive was, as the attack was targeted and wasn't random. Rager7 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. (See also)

Some of the things in the See Also section seem to be there to support a political agenda. Since we don't yet know the motive of the shooter (the writings on the casings may have been there as a diversion), I think we should remove some (if not all) of these.

• Health insurance costs in the United States
• Health insurance coverage in the United States
• Healthcare in the United States
• Medical debt – Debt incurred by individuals due to health care costs
• Medicare for All Act – Proposed U.S. healthcare reform legislation
• nH Predict – Computer program developed by naviHealth
• Propaganda of the deed – Political action meant to catalyse revolution
• Single-payer healthcare – System of health care

Kingturtle = (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kingturtle, seem to be there to support a political agenda; WP:AGF, the first 3-4 seem especially relevant given the public response section of this very article, so readers who aren't familiar with US healthcare processes can learn about the subject being discussed as a possible motive for the assailant and for the nexus of many public reactions to the incident. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kingturtle To be fair, this event related to healthcare system that's why the See also section had links filled with healthcare related articles. Rager7 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

We do not know the motive of the shooter yet. People are leaping to conclusions about the motive. That should not be a reason to add these things to a see also. This article needs to be about the shooting and not about speculation as to why the shooting occurred. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

What about the bullet casings that reads "deny", "defend", and "depose"? Rager7 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's say it was a hired hit job for a different reason, and the shooter left misleading clues intentionally (a red herring) to make it seem like something else. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

So you think the shooter had different motives from what the bullets were written. Rager7 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, regardless, the salient links have been safely re-added since Kingturtle has elected to ignore my comment. I think the "motive of the shooter" is irrelevant with the public reaction that's taken place so far, reaction that is well sourced, verifiable and included in our article. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the See Also section should have topics related to this main article. Which has been reinstated to show similar topics to healthcare. Rager7 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm noticing we've lost the "see also" section again -- I'm wondering if with the release of the manifesto from Klippenstein and the inclusion of motive in the infobox, we'd be able to re-add this section and some of these articles? Perhaps also relevant are life expectancy in the United States, criticism of capitalism, universal health care, healthcare reform debate in the United States? Just throwing out some ideas. BenjaminKZ _Talk 14:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@BenjaminKZ WP:NOTSEEALSO indicates that, as a general rule, links already included in the body of the article should not be repeated in a "See also" section. At the time this discussion was occurring, I don't believe many of the links above were in the article itself, but most of the relevant ones appear to be represented now. FYI, the see also section existed less than 50 revisions ago, but it only contained links to the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump, so clearly the section was being abused... —Locke Cole • t • c 16:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Video

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

I have uploaded the video of the shooting (right) under a PD-automated rationale, but since this will 100% be disputed, I'll bring up the question: Should this be included in the article? Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored and that while some people may not like it, information here is vital. E_F⁵ 15:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Uh, I don't much care for "Should this be included in the article? Please remember that if you say 'no' you're a cossack, besides which your personal editorial opinion is no interest here here" tone, colleague. Surely there are better ways to state your case about this particular editorial question. Herostratus (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, chill out. I literally just asked whether this video should be included and a reminder that it is allowed on Wikipedia. Nowhere did I call others a "Cossack". It's a genuine question, and apparently you didn't see that. E_F⁵ 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Good work on the video upload @EF5 I cannot even begin to understand @Herostratus's reply to you. It's gibberish - but notwithstanding that, it also seems to be very WP:REACTIVE and WP:RUDE. I'm sorry you had to experience that EF5. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, I get messages like that all the time. I've brung it up on their talk page, but anyways, let's keep this on-topic. E_F⁵ 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Include it. There is no reason not to include the video. And it’s better if people were to see it on a secure site like this versus elsewhere StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Y Done, I have bold added it. If it's challenged, then this discussion can be reopened. E_F⁵ 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Herostratus, please be civil. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong support A public domain video of exactly the event in question is a clear-cut example of good image use. I see absolutely no reason not to include it in the article, aside from the potential fact that a better or more clear video may exist. Departure– (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

CCTV Footage Removal

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

No. Einsof (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNCENSORED, per prior discussions there's yet to be a case made for its removal otherwise, but we should probably establish consensus on a rationale before removing it again. BenjaminKZ _Talk 21:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Firecat93 I did suggest to start this section in an edit summary, but subsequently I noticed that such a section already exists; therefore, merged. —Alalch E. 21:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There's no policy on removing material solely for being graphic, especially when it's use in the article is entirely helpful for illustrating the event. Wikipedia doesn't remove content just because some editors don't like it. Departure– (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The stated aim of Wikipedia is as an encylopedia: I am not aware of any published encyclopedias showcasing what could be considered snuff, or at least active violent video. Consider, for example, that if no limits are put on presentable content, it may be permissable to include in articles: Scenes of explicit rape, images taken by stalkers, images created with the intention of harassing an individual, etc. in the name of informing the public. This is worthy of yellow news, not encyclopedias for the public: Should we post the full video of Kim Kardashions infamous Sex Type on the related article?

Perhaps even full length videos of films on their articles! They would doubtless be "informative".

It cannot be denied the video is informative, but of what? The contents of the video could be described with a few short sentences. This is the method used in films: the plot is described in text.

84.71.254.229 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We're not going to censor the video that perfectly illustrates the subject while also being the subject of significant reliable source discussion, especially when it's freely licensed, just because it's graphic. And for the example you gave, if it had been non-copyrighted or freely licensed, it would likely have been uploaded to Commons at some point and linked to in the article. Also, Night of the Living Dead contains the full movie within the article as it is out of copyright. Departure– (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not simply a matter of censorship, but of inclusion. Wikipedia:scopes very first sentence describing what wikipedias aim is, is:

"Encyclopedias summarize knowledge, rather than try to contain all of it.", yet here we link the event ITSELF on camera. I am reminded of the Borges Empire-Map:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Exactitude_in_Science

Encyclopedias should not be a map with a scale of 1 mile = 1 mile.

The necessity of this limit is immediate, in my opinion:

If the only criteria for acceptable content is informativity then it is not an encyclopedia but a free for all social media platform, an aimless postboard with no scope at all: All possible contributions are, themselves, information, even lies contain information useful to an apt interpreter, and this includes primary content. Yet, wikipedia avoids (as much as feasible) primary contributions. Is this not censorship? Even the removal of vandalism is, in some regard, censorship, as is decried by graffiti artists globally.

Consider that many youtube videos are more historically notable than some films with articles: If we can host whole films, wikipedia could directly host youtube videos "for archival purposes", and even the comment sections could be considered "live historical artifacts" in the making, what people comment about the video being the article content itself, like formal reviews. Wiki would be a mirror in both senses, just a platform for people to host links on. Wikipedia is popular, and may even exceed those websites it mirrors themself: Imagine for example a video category where all the most "notable" videos users find on social media every week are directly hosted by wikipedia within their daily microarticles, and the top comments get their own paragraph. The only source needed is that someone downloaded it and reuploaded it to wikimedia or somewhere...

I see no way to reconcile this attitude with that of an encyclopedia. Encylopedias do not host everything and anything. Wikipedia cannot achieve its scope without setting limits on what is outside it, and primary video of the event in question is in ky opinion outside it. Perhaps if the video were instead a reconstruction or diagram as News channels often do. The recency of the event just makes this more of an issue.

As for linking it: Linking as such is already troublesome, but can be simplified as the quotation of or reference to a source... but not always. On the internet, a link could be a source, or it could be the content itself. A website hosting a file could be a source, or it could be the original uploader. Its difficult to set a boundary here, but I do not think wikipedia should link to things like movie streaming services that host files, and we shouldnt host the content itself either. That is for libraries or archives. Perhaps we can link to an archive or news source from which the original video of the assassination was taken from?

84.71.254.229 (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the 9/11 article does have original video of the crashes so there is precedent to keep this. Us all treating video of recently dead humans as an spectacle doesnt sit right with me though.yourself: 84.71.254.229 (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of a widely distributed and culturally impactful depiction of the event is not inherently spectacle; graphic video is not added for sport. It is for illustration and reliable access. BenjaminKZ _Talk 15:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

X = 20 feet should be changed to x = 9 feet.

The assilant was not waiting in front of the Hilton Hotel, but rather in front of the enwly named Luxury Collection Hotel (most recently called The Conrad Hotel). Journey2 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I have stayed at the same hotel since 1997. I know the surrounding streets like the back on my hand. What has not been reported acturately is that he had only been walking ~18-20 seconds outside his hotel before being shot from behind. The shooter did not shoot from 20 feet, but from a much closer range (~ 9 feet). The shooter exited the area to his left which is NOT an alleyway as reported, but a courtyard. I have passed through this courtyard hundreds of times and have maybe seen 6-9 people in total. Very secluded from a people standpoint. Also highly under-reported. W54th street between 6th and 7th Avenues (even though it is one block away from Broadway and one block away from Avenue of the Americas), is very quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

The reference to Marriott is too ambiguous in the timeline entry: "Thompson leaves the Marriott hotel he stayed at the prior night, heading towards the New York Hilton Midtown hotel"

Suggest that it be changed to "Thompson leaves The Luxury Collection Hotel Manhattan Midtown he stayed at the night before ..."

"The Luxury Collection" should hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_International#The_Luxury_Collection

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

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

For the record, "The Luxury Collection Hotel Manhattan Midtown" is the official name of the hotel, not "Marriott." You can't find this location by searching for "Marriott" on Google Maps (maps.app.goo.gl/GodsudQxH1vw3HGR9), as someone trying to follow the timeline might be apt to do.

I know Wikipedia doesn't care about being factual and I am not going to go looking for a reporter's confirmation (god forbid it comes from a non-kosher source). But it should be pointed out that people looking to find this location by searching "Marriott" won't be able to do so. 71.120.246.125 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Mention heightened discussion of jury nullification?

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

We need reliable sources discussing it for it to be included. Besides, they don't even have an identified suspect, let alone an arrest made at this point. Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Only source I could find was this, which is a terrible source. There's plenty of discussion on forums like Reddit but nothing in WP:RS yet. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Searching for "jury nullification" on Google News now gives articles from the Daily Mail [1] and UNILAD. [2] It goes without saying that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, but UNILAD is not listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Anyone know if UNILAD is considered reliable? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Assailant's identity paragraph

Smallbones, if you insist that the current event be at the top, then the rest of that paragraph is essentially unnecessary. It makes no sense to have the paragraphs about the suspect description and beginning of the manhunt afterwards. It should be chronological. Furthermore, per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT, the name of the suspect probably should not be on the page yet, and per the comments added (not by me!) to the page, it should have a talk page consensus. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the rest of the paragraph if you'd like. It's worth at least a short sentence now IMHO. As far as quoting policy to me it says:

"editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime."

I've seriously considered, and it seems to me I've only written that he has been arrested and is a suspect in the case, according to the New York Times. What you read into that is your business, but don't attribute it to me. There's no requirement in policy to bring it to the talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry - with all the other edits doing on I only saw the suspect's name pop up in the top-positioned paragraph upon one of your reverts, I hadn't seen it originally edited in by someone else which was apparently the case. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I support removal of the name until arrest in direct connection with the shooting. Right now, he is only arrested for the illegal weapon. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

@John Broughton: The person was only a person of interest at 19:40 UTC on the 9th, hence he is only arrested for the illegal weapon and until arrest[ed] in direct connection with the shooting. I thank you for the later update. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources for "The Adjuster"

The shooting occurred early in the morning, and the suspect, colloquially referred to as the Co-Pay Killer[4] and described as a white man, fled the scene.

Anecdotally, I've seen him referred to as "The Adjuster" more than "the Co-Pay Killer", and google trends substantiates this, however I cannot find any non-social-media sources to substantiate this. Given the lack of searches for "Co-pay Killer" I am tempted to WP:BOLD remove it, as it is therefore not "colloquial", but would prefer to replace it with "The Adjuster" if anybody can find some reliable media calling him this. Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I already removed both titles - the sources seemed bad. I have seen people use the adjuster, but I haven't seen that title get news coverage. HelenaBertrand (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

rolledback edits by @IRDM pending this discussion Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 21:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

do any of these three sources count? 1 2 3 iRDM 19:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources substantiating "Adjuster" conjecture: Wired, nbc, and Yahoo!News. Trilomonk (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Mangione family well-known in Baltimore

Baltimore's WMAR-TV had released new information about Luigi, stating that his family was well-known throughout the state. The family owns two resorts and talk radio station WCBM. Mangione's cousin is sitting Maryland State Delegate Nino Mangione, who represents District 42A.

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

Right now the consensus seems to be that per WP:SUSPECT, the name of the person of interest who has been arrested is not to be included. As of right now, he hasn't even been charged with anything in relation to the crime, just a gun crime in PA. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Other sources say the family is very rich.

OK, if the name of the arrested man is withheld here, ok. But the editors who are controlling this article (and that should not be the case) should allow good faith edits that have other information about the man. Usually Wikipedia is a great place for information but here it is so far lagging behind other sources because article controlling editors are removing so much information. That is terrible and why Wikipedia is failing the world in this article. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Obviously this is more of a moot point at the moment - however, to my understanding, wikipedia is not a source of breaking news. It's an encyclopedia, and can afford to be a bit prudent when it's airing out all of someone's business who was initially just a person of interest. I get the want to add in all available information and context about the subject of the article, which is of course a laudable goal, but, especially given how much everyone else was plastering this stuff everywhere, I don't think wikipedia would be failing the world by showing some caution. Quite the opposite, even.

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

Draft on Luigi

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)

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)

Background on US health system

Having a section attempting to summarize the US health system (all with sources unrelated and prior to these events) is WP:SYNTH and borderling WP:OR trying to assume a connection between these (arbitrary) features of the US system and the context for this shooting. If there are things to reference from the suspect's actual views, then perhaps that sourced material could be included, but not what's been inserted (and re-inserted) at this point. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact that his remuneration package was in essence "save a billion, earn a million". I can see why people are annoyed that their relatives died drug-and-medical-care-free-deaths. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The following is a quote from the accused's manifesto:

"A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy. United is the [indecipherable] largest company in the US by market cap, behind only Apple, Google, Walmart. It has grown and grown, but as our life expectancy? No the reality is, these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful…"

Does this conjecture regarding the US Health Insurance industry not sufficiently make relevant an appropriately-sized (I don't pretend to know what depth is justified here) section regarding the insurance industry's practices? Trilomonk (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Snokalok Please read WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTESSAY. Drawing material from sources unrelated to the shooting implies a motive that we have no evidence for (as far as we know, Brian Thompson was killed for having an affair with the shooter's wife). If you can find sources directly connecting the shooting to the info in the paragraph then it can stay but would need to be rewritten to only draw from those sources. – MW_(t•c) 02:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Name of suspect

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)

• Yes. No reason not to.—Alalch E. 09:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. No real problems now that he has been charged, and all of the world's media has reported it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 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. The suspect has been charged and widely reported on. Cortador (talk) 10:33, 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.

Reminder: Be very cautious of what you write and how you write it

People accused of crime

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

Kingturtle = (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We base articles on what sources state, not court rulings. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We also are very careful about how we phrase things and what we choose to include until there is a verdict. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia isn't a court of law. We base articles on what sources state, not court rulings" @Cortador Are you being sarcastic or is that a serious comment? And if you're being serious, are you sure that's not nonsense? Also, you do realise how your two sentences are an absurd non-sequitur, don't you? What has "Wikipedia not being a court of law" got to do with not including court rulings in articles? In every western judiciary, court reports (i.e. the scheduling and outcomes of cases) are published in the public domain (and usually available online in perpetuity). So are you seriously claiming that if an article was to include a person's criminal conviction, an online court report from the actual court (published under a .gov domain) would not be a valid source, but a third party news website citing the court report would be valid? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Court rulings are primary sources. If you want to include information in an article, it needs to be reported on by a secondary sources. If there's no secondary sources, the ruling isn't worth including. That is basic Wikipedia sourcing. Cortador (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The polar opposite of academic & scientific writing then? Why doesn't that surprise me? Basic indeed. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is different in that we are not allowed to use original research. While we can include primary sources, we must cite them with extreme caution, lest we imply conclusions not supported by them. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess I'll just stick to fixing punctuation and polishing up dodgy prose. Please tell me there's not a WP:PUNCTUATION? I'm not reading it even if there is. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

An academic article on this (future) legal case would be a secondary source, not a primary one. I doubt anyone will conduct scientific experiments on the court documents, but hey, you never know. Cortador (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Erm, no @Cortador. You've dropped your banana skin and stepped on it yourself. My point, which I made clearly, is that academic and scientific writing disparages anything other than peer-reviewed primary literature as reference material. If you ever get go to university you'll discover that students are strongly discouraged from using textbooks as source material, and are trained to focus on reading original, primary, peer-reviewed literature. I should perhaps clarify for you that in this sense, 'literature' just means written material, not Jane Austen novels. Scientific papers are literature. Post-graduates and academics will rarely if ever cite a secondary source. And of course nobody, not even first year students, will ever cite a Wikipedia article. Nice try at insulting me - but it back-fired I am sorry to tell you. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We aren't at university here, we are on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't consider peer-reviewed academic articles on court cases primary sources, it considers them secondary sources. The court documents themselves would be the primary sources in that case.

I recommend that you read WP:PRIMARY and familiarise yourself with what Wikipedia considers primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Cortador (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That is why I said it was a difference between academia/science and Wikipedia. This is your second message where you're flogging a dead horse. You were trying to be smart with your ridiculous remark "I doubt anyone will conduct scientific experiments on the court documents, but hey, you never know". A very poor deliberate misconstrual of my statement. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You admitted above that you weren't aware of this difference until a few hours ago, despite working on this article. I hope you understand that it is important to know how Wikipedia treats sources.

I recommend that you read WP:RS, which discusses sources more broadly and isn't just about the difference between primary/secondary/tertiary sources. Cortador (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop trying to insult my intelligence. I was perfectly aware of the difference. I pointed the difference out - perhaps the rhetorical slant was too subtle. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Take a break please. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You just insist on having the last word don't you? Don't patronise me. I'm insulting nobody, but there is one editor trying to be clever and mock me but failing at every turn. And another telling me I'm wrong when in fact he missed a double negative. How about you take a break? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am asking you to take a break because civility is essential on Wikipedia. Being rude is counterproductive, and it is expected that editors assume good faith of others. It is common for editors to get emotionally invested in a dispute, and when people get too emotionally invested, they often become uncivil and disruptive. The best way to prevent that from happening is to take a break to clear your head, and that is what I'm asking you to do now. I'll step away for a bit too, and we can come back with a clear head and a focus on working together. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm angry but I really don't accept I'm being uncivil. I'm telling one editor to stop attempting to mock me by deliberate miscontrual of my comments, and I'm asking another to notice that the mistake in comprehension of a question/answer was his, not mine. Quote my "rudeness" back to me please? Where is it? Stridency isn't rudeness. Defending myself isn't rudeness. This is bear-baiting and you insist on telling me to step away and calm down. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm never going to go and read those WP:NOTES - so could you tell me @Kingturtle, is it really the case that an article cannot state "John Doe was charged with homicide in Any Court in Any City on DD/MM/YYYY"? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Consider reading the "WP:NOTES". They answer your question. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I was clear that I am never going to read them Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not the case. Maybe you should read those notes :) Kingturtle = (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so it is allowed to state in articles that person X was charged with offence Y. I guess in your OP you did say editors should consider not doing this - which means it is acceptable with due consideration. Sometimes I wonder if my time spent on WP is actually just a weird hallucination or dream that's only happening in an upside down part of my unconscious mind. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Take a breath and re-read what it says. :) Kingturtle = (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And you do the same. I asked "is it really the case that an article cannot state..." and you replied "no". Meaning therefore that 'an article can state...'. Yes?  :) Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The linked pages have everything you need to know. It is expected that all contributors to Wikipedia familiarize themselves with relevant policies and guidelines, which in this case Kingturtle linked above. Bowler the Carmine | talk 23:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are you weighing in here? I'm asking an other editor who accused me of being in error to admit his own mistake. As to your comment on my talk page - I'm the person here who is being told I'm wrong when I'm right, who's facing ludicrous deliberate misconstruals by editor 2, and being "warned" by you for being abusive when there are three of you piling in on me. My comments here may be about the guidelines but don't contravene the guidelines, and I'm not making any edits to which those guidelines are relevant. I'm discussing the guidelines and I'm expressing my disapproval of their ridiculous quality standards. And for that reason I have no interest in them and no interest in making any edits that involve them. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Am I right - is this in fact your mistake? Are you going to comment or just stay silent? My question wasn't a trick to catch you out on a double-negative Q&A, which (and correct me if I am wrong) you missed? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Still no admission from @Kingturtle of their mistake, and their mistake in telling me it was I who was wrong. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe just walk away for a bit? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's such sound advice and it is so interesting that you said that - it's exactly what @Bowler the Carmine has been repeating over and over. I've never communicated with you before now @ZimZalaBim, but strangely in the last few hours I know I've seen your name crop up several times. I keep getting told to stop being rude and combative and uncivil, but I can't help wonder why @Kingturtle does not simply respond to tell me again that it was I who made the mistake - which would very much close the matter off. Anyway, I need to get some sleep. We're in different time zones. I'm not in California. I'm not walking away - I'm going to bed. But feel free to continue to tell me to walk away or take a breath or re-read what it says or threaten me with sanctions. I'll pick this up in the morning, when I guess Californian folks will all be in bed. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether we've communicated before or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and we're all here together. Maybe you won't get the response you seem to desire, but then again, Wikipedia isn't about winning arguments either. Hope you rest well. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the fact that we have not communicated before is relevant. It's relevant because you just parachuted into a discussion and chose to tell me and only me to back off. Just like a colleague before you did. It makes me wonder about the process that led to you parachuting in with your point of view. You mention "winning arguments" - the issue I am sure that refers to could be construed as an "argument", but I'd rather construe it as me asking another editor, who accused me of being in error, to just admit they got it wrong and the error was theirs. I don't characterise it as an "argument" - anybody with an average level of reading competence should be able to see that what I said was objectively correct on a basic semantic basis. I assume that the person who is in error, you, and the other person who came along to tell me to "walk away" are admins - or at least aspiring admins. And instead of any of you telling me, the lowly newbie, "you know what, you're right, it wasn't your error" - the OP is silent and the other two of you tell me (in what I perceive to be condescending tones) to "walk away and leave it". It's a thoroughly minor detail and of no consequence to anything: but I hate being told I'm wrong when, objectively, I am not. When I am wrong I happily admit my mistake. Was there pride at stake, and did the OP pull in external resources to ensure I got censured and their pride didn't get dented? Maybe if I got needled enough from enough different directions I might have descended into abusive language and could have been blocked or sanctioned?

The point of disagreement was as simple as me asking:

"is it the case that X is not allowed?", the answer being,

"No, that is not the case". I reply,

"So X is allowed?", the response being

"Read it again".

It's trivial, and it's beneath us all. But instead of an admission of error ("oops, my bad"), the person in error calls in the cavalry to needle me and persistently tell me to drop it, turning it into a grand spectacle but a rather poor show. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Mark Rosario

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

Please change

“ He checked into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on November 24 with a fake New Jersey identification card and paid in cash. ”

to

He checked into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side of Manhattan on November 24 with a fake New Jersey identification card saying "Mark Rosario", and paid in cash.

with the reference:

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

{{cite news |url= https://www.nbcnewyork.com/manhattan/photos-fake-id-gun-luigi-mangione-person-interest-united-healthcare-ceo/6054152/ |title= Photos: Fake ID, gun allegedly found on Luigi Mangione, person of interest in CEO killing |author1= Jonathan Dienst |author2= Tom Winter |date= 9 December 2024 |publisher= NBC 4 New York }}

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

•  Not done. Adding that sentence to the article is combining material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.—Alalch E. 10:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of an accomplice. I thought Luigi acted alone, now you're suggesting this Mark person was somehow involved too? Are you sure the name is Mark, and not Mario? Maybe a twin brother? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Additional source provided below, which explicitly connects the name to the ID provided at the hostel, instead of being implied in the NBC source. The NBC source howver provides a photo of the fake ID, so both sources should be added to the modified statement.

• 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.eonline.com/ca/news/1410947/luigi-mangione-arrested-at-mcdonalds-how-police-found-person-of-interest-in-unitedhealthcare-ceo-death |title= Luigi Mangione Arrested at McDonald's: How Police Found Person of Interest in UnitedHealthcare CEO Death |author= Olivia Evans |date= 9 December 2024 |publisher= E! Online |work= E! News |via= E! Networks |id= 1410947 }}

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

Luigi Mangione's booking photo

ABC put up Mangione's mugshot a few hours ago. Is it too early to upload it or not?

• Aaron Katersky. "UnitedHealthcare CEO killing: Luigi Mangione faces murder charge as new details emerge". ABC News.

question about the timeline

Can some give me legitimate reasons why "UnitedHealth Group investor meeting begins" and "UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty cancels the rest of the investor meeting" belong in the timeline? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I placed them there because they give context to what Thompson was planning for his day to look like. I think they provide helpful background information but am not wedded to those items at the hip. Maximilian775 (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The meeting actions are irrelevant to the timeline of the killing itself. We aren't here to provide context. I've removed it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I disagree completely with ZimZalaBim. Of course the timeline needs to provide the entire context of the events as opposed to just the minutes-long window of the killing itself. It speaks to what the victim was planning on doing that morning, and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors. It strikes me as a little silly to say that the perpetrator getting coffee is a crucial detail critical to the shooting, but an update on the event the victim was heading to was not. The investor meeting is covered by reputable sources and mentioned as a significant event that occurred in the temporal proximity of the shooting. I think that this should be put back into the article until there is clear consensus for removal, and strongly oppose any unilateral effort to take it out. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors" - this is all an opinion, not a fact. The fact there was an investor meeting that brought Thompson to NYC is clearly mentioned in the article. The start and stop time of the meeting itself doesn't need to be detailed in a timeline of events. Once Thompson was shot, those activities are no longer part of the timeline of directly related events. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim "Once Thompson was shot, those activities are no longer part of the timeline of directly related events" respectfully, I simply disagree with this. Immediate consequences of a shooting are relevant, and the cancellation of the event he was set to speak at is an immediate consequence. In other words, if someone is assassinated en route to something, the subsequent cancellation of that event immediately after the shooting is critical to understanding the timeline of events. If a famous singer was shot at 9:15pm en route to a concert that was set to start at 10:00pm, you don't think mentioning "9:55 pm, Concert is officially cancelled" is a relevant detail in that scenario? Analogous. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, the fact a meeting was cancelled over 2 hours later isn't relevent to the specific timeline of the suspect or the victim. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"It speaks to what the victim was planning on doing that morning, and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors." <----this is exactly why it shouldn't be included. There is no evidence that one of the shooter's motives was to have the meeting be canceled. It is speculative and there for has no place in the timeline. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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.[3] They talk about a "unholy alliance" between populists on the far-left and far-right, where both extremes are borrowing each other's ideas. This is consistent with recent political science research indicating that anti-elite sentiment trumps traditionally partisan ideologies these days (see[4])

And while I'm not personally a reliable source and so won't link my own essays, I have been researching American populism for over a year now and can vouch for the 2 sources linked above. The extremes on the right (in the MAGA movement) and the extremes on the left (say, the Bernie Sanders crowd) have more common ground with each other than the moderates in their own parties. It's here where you find a mix of both anti-woke and anti-corporate views, perhaps typified by commentators like Bill Maher and Joe Rogan, who are quite hard to pin down ideologically.

With this in mind, it's entirely misleading to link suspect's "right wing" views to this particular murder. Suspect was not hearing rhetoric against the health insurance industry from the right-wing media -this is entirely the domain of the left. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. Neutrality^talk 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)

Article image/CCTV video

Hello, it looks like there's some editing going on involving the infobox image; for a while, it had been a still image of right before the first shot but it was changed today to be the full CCTV video (though without the caption being changed. I've reverted it back to the still, as that is what appeared to me to be the consensus among many editing the page over the last few days. I think that the video has value; but it shouldn't be the infobox media. It should be further down in the article. We rarely see videos in infoboxes. September 11 attacks has still images, with videos of the attacks further down.

Thoughts? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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

include the video further down in the article. People will be searching for it anyway and it’s better that it could be viewed on a secure site like this 73.210.30.217 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the suspect’s health issues be included

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

[5][6][7][8] [5]

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

tagging @Kingturtle as this is now a content revert dispute and we are now seeking talk page consensus for inclusion or exclusion Wafflefrites (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Until there is information from a legitimate source that there is a link between his back issues and his motive, it is merely speculation and has no place in this article. This article is not a place to post hunches and ideas. It doesn't matter to this article that he had back issues or surgery UNLESS it is connected directly to the killing or to the motives of the killing. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The Social media section currently has the sentence “ His Goodreads account flagged six books related to chronic back pain and spinal surgery.” Should that sentence be deleted as well?

Also under that section, do the sources directly link “right wing” views to motive? If not, shouldn’t that entire section be deleted as well? Wafflefrites (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we should say it’s his motive but enough sources are making a point of reporting it to warrant notability for the article, I’d argue Snokalok (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be notable for a news story trying to get ratings, but it isn't notable for an encyclopedia article about a murder. To be included in a Wikipedia article, it needs to have a legitimate link to the motives of the accused. For example, personal writings about how he got screwed by his health insurance involving his back pain or surgery. Or, becoming addicted to pain medications because of the back pain, and being high on pain meds when he planned and performed the crime. Or, his defense lawyer uses the back pain as some sort of reason for the crime committed. In those instances, there would be a direct link. Just saying he had back pain and surgery, that by itself is not encyclopedic in an article about the crime. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Frankly I'm concerned that the article stated that he was influenced by "reactionary right wing thinkers". Attributed or not, if you think that is a legitimate link to the motives of the accused, then him having medical issue would also be legitimate (I think neither of them is). Loaded descriptions like "reactionary right wing" should not be added without it being something widely considered to be true (attribution to a single source is unacceptable), and certainly not when it is unknown as to his motives, nor his guilt proven. Hzh (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto text

@Bowler the Carmine There are probably tens of thousands of block-quotes this length on wiki, which policy do you think prevents it? GordonGlottal (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

While we are permitted to quote brief excerpts of copyrighted material if there is no easy alternative, we cannot reproduce sources in their entirety. It's not the length of the quote that's the issue, it's how much of the source was reproduced. A few hundred words from a book-length work isn't as big of an issue, but including the manifesto in its entirety, even though it's shorter than some blockquotes here, is absolutely out of the question. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Again: according to what policy????????? GordonGlottal (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT is the full policy, if you're interested in reading the entire thing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Where does WP:COPYRIGHT, or any other wiki policy, limit the percentage of a copyrighted text work that can be included? Nowhere. No such policy exists. There is no policy which prevents us from including a 250-word passage, obviously unique and not reproduceable from free material. There is no policy which limits the percentage of a text work that can be included. Until such time as you can convince your fellow editors to accept such a policy, pleaseself-revert. And stop trying to bully me with nonsense like this. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a well-reasoned and thorough rebuttal @GordonGlottal, and it seems you are extremely well acquainted with WP:COPYRIGHT. I read it myself just now and I see for myself that you are correct, which I never doubted. One reason not to reproduce the "manifesto" is that it's what Mangione would want - and there is something to be said for denying him the publicity he seeks. I wonder if anybody has ever been sued for reproducing a manifesto - since the raison d'etre of a manifesto (based on its etymology) is that the author seeks its publication en masse in the public domain? In the unlikely event that someone did sue for copyright infringement over the dissemination of a manifesto they had written, their first line remedy would necessarily be to ask the disseminator to cease and desist. Therefore, in the unlikely event that Mangione does issue a cease and desist notice, that would be a perfect trigger for its removal from WP:WIKIPEDIA. A much better trigger than citing a policy that does not exclude its reproduction in the first place. I think if you'll commit to removing it in the event that Mangione issues you with a cease and desist notice, you ought to include it, particularly since doing so does not contravene WP:COPYRIGHT. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Wikipedia is too concerned about "platforming" the manifesto or not. The media already has done so, and we have articles over all sorts of subjects, including Osama's Letter to the American People. That being said, that full "manifesto" isn't placed in that article either Catboy69 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the WP:PLATFORMING question either. As you say, it's already very much "out there". As for Osama - grrr, don't mention him to me. I can't stand that guy. Absolute scoundrel. The issue seemed to be if WP:COPYRIGHT prevented the reproduction of the "manifesto", which it does not. Other editors are arguing that "lengthy" reproductions are prohibited - which is correct. But they're ignoring @GordonGlottal's accurate assertion that the manifesto is about 250 words in length. Therefore the issue seems to be whether or not 250 words, which for those not acquainted with word counts is a paragraph or two, meets the standard for "lengthy". My WP:OR thinks not. What do you think? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be better to quote at Wikisource. See WP:Wikisource for details. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is one of the policies that prevents us from including a 250-word passage. It says "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other primary source material. In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts being discussed should be relevant to the discussion (or illustrative of style) and should be kept to an appropriate length."

What is normally done in instances like this is an external link is found of the text, and we put a link to it in the External Links Section. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the manifesto text from the citations section. It should never appear there. That isn't what citations are for. The full text should not appear in the article. If anything, create an external link to the URL in the External Links section. However, based on Klippenstein's history, we need to verify that the text he has is indeed the legit text. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we create a separate article for Luigi mangione?

since he was arrested, many news reports have covered mangione extensively and have made him recognizable among the general public, also other notable assassins like Thomas crooks and Ryan routh have gotten separate articles so should we not give mangione a separate article? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PERPETRATOR: “For perpetrators,

1. The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or
2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
   • Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.”

Wafflefrites (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Suspect and assailant

Suspect is used in most cases.

Assailant is used when shooting.

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

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

For all we know, the suspect is not the assailant Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Until convicted, we should use words like suspect and accused. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Timeline section currently refers to him as Suspect. Should we use "assailant" there instead for the whole thing, for only the shooting, or not at all? guninvalid (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Luigi's fake New Jersey identification card

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

Personally, I would think it is best to avoid given that there are people named Mark Rosario in the US. Granted, I prefer caution in these situations. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

So what if he shared content praising Thiel and Musk. As far as we know, this has nothing at all to do with any motive or action by the accused. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it's important that he shared this content. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also the sentences regarding “tech-bro” takes, mental health, ancient history, and his reposts of the decline of Christianity. Those are not even tangentially related to motive either. Wafflefrites (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The entire section on the suspects views does seem a little selective regardless, according to CNN his views not the run of the mill reactionary/right wing but more nuanced and syncretic https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/brian-thompson-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare-shooting-12-10-24#cm4j4h8c0003n3b6r98y7cp9e Shadowfax817 (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

are you seriously using CNN as a source of information? 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The other way that I've heard it described is that Mangione's views are not ideologically consistent. He's more politically erratic than anything, or not ideologically motivated. guninvalid (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If so then his political skew needent be mentioned as it seem immaterial to his motive at this time. 2603:6011:59F0:21E0:585F:7A1C:2E10:3666 (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

What the name of the journalist is does not have prominence relative to other facts that may be added to the lead and making him the third named person to appear in the article is bizarre and editorially unjustified. Get consensus for this addition whoever is doing it. —Alalch E. 00:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

But now it is in the passive voice. "The full text of the manifesto was published later." Does it even need to be in the lead? If so, fix the passive voice. If not, we can put it elsewhere. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The full text of the manifesto was published later.

I did not write this. I wrote

The manifesto criticizes healthcare companies for prioritizing profits over patient care.

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

See section below regarding the term "manifesto." A manifesto is by definition, a published document. It may be convenient to call it that, but its a heavily loaded term. At this time it's more accurate to call it Mangione's "handwritten document" which, if you must add, "has been characterized as a "manifesto."842U (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Response to the killing in the lead section

The sentence in the lead section: "The killing has been characterized by many social media users as deserved or justified" has been changed to "The killing has been characterized by many as deserved or justified".

I can't see any content in the main body of the article which states that many individuals not posting on social media have said the killing was deserved or justified. If they are not on social media, who are they?

Even the lecturer in social work at a University who mentioned the deaths of 68,000 Americans who he said needlessly die each year posted his comments on social media, which was subsequently reported in a newspaper. But this lecturer posting on social media did not state the killing was justified. Apart from social media users, who are the many other people who have said the killing was deserved or justified? Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

This is a reasonable take. I've just changed the wording. guninvalid (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bowler the Carmine | talk 07:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"The suspect" or "a suspect"?

Have sources confirmed that there is one and only one suspect, and that others have been ruled out? Do we have confirmation that it is appropriate to refer to Mangione as "the" suspect rather than just "a" suspect or "the main" suspect? guninvalid (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's too early to say, but all of the sourcing is focused on Mangione, who has been arrested and charged. This means that there is little need to suggest that other people may be involved, when investigators have not suggested this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearing up an edit war

I'm noticing a small edit skirmish between @Natmazz and @ReferenceMan over date formats. MOS:DATEFORMAT currently reads that years can be omitted if there is no risk of ambiguity. Personally, I think it's better to keep the years; certainly someone reading right now about it already knowing about the incident wouldn't be confused, but a new reader or someone reading about this incident three years from now might. I think that constitutes "risk of ambiguity". guninvalid (talk) 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's why I've been adding the years. Thinking down the line and the fact that it is almost 2025. I'm sure there will be things to add about this case come the new year so just thinking ahead. Natmazz (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Incel

I removed Category:Incel-related violence because that is not factual, it is speculative. There is no place at all anywhere in this article for Incel-related text, at least not until we hear it from the suspect, or there is a legal history involving such behavior, or it comes up in the trial, etc. We need legit evidence on such a claim, not just true-crime hype or roommates telling stories. Kingturtle = (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I've seen some media describe him as 'incel', although not a lot. More often they claim he led a reclusive and 'celibate' lifestyle prior to the killing, but no idea if the celibacy was voluntary or not.

In any event, even if he is/was an incel, this killing had nothing to do with incel stuff, and so it doesn't fall under this category. Incel-related violence refers to violent crimes specifically motivated by that factor. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is not an assassination

The title of this article is Killing of Brian Thompson, not Assassination of Brian Thompson. For that to ever change, according to Wikipedia policy (WP:Assassination), this incident would have "to have a single commonly recognized common name in reliable sources." It goes on: "Even if a death appears to be an assassination, the article title should not use the term assassination unless that term is part of the established common name."

So, until then please use the word killer, not assassin. Please do not put the word assassin or assignation in text or descriptions or in categories or see alsos.

The word may come up when newsworthy people mention the word and that is okay to include, as long as this article itself is not suggesting it was an assassination. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you meant assassination and not assignation - I'm sure you won't mind being corrected. You say that for the term 'assassination' to ever be used, according to WP:Assassination "this incident etc...." Is it true to say that another way for this to "ever change", people could discuss changes or improvements to the WP:Assassination policy? Or are WP:Policies immutable? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. People can definitely discuss any policy and work toward changing it. Wikipedia is not set in stone and is driven by community consensus. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've seen multiple news sources say "flirting" -- not disputing your point but there are reputable sources saying that he was flirting, not just randos on Twitter or Reddit. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you must include the term "flirting" then describe the sourcing accurately. At this juncture immaterial that it was or wasn't flirting: but if it is included, the article should relay that "initial reports: characterized it as an act of flirting.842U (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Use of the term "manifesto"

the term "manifesto" is premature, ill-fitting, hyperbolic and inappropriate -- and hence should be avoided in the absence of a seriously bonafide source. A manifesto is by definition a document that has been published. Mangione was found with handwritten notes. It is unnecessary and damaging to describe it otherwise -- until such time as a bonafide source of some expertise says otherwise. 842U (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Notebook found

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

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[9]. 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[10]." 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)

Re: Biden, Trump, Kennedy

Can someone explain how these sentences relate to the killing of the suspect's alleged involvement with the killing? I think they should all be removed.

Mangione appeared to be frustrated with the medical field and showed a skeptical attitude towards both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, while showing apparent support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s run for president in 2024.

In July 2024, Mangione described reactions to Project 2025, a plan for Trump's second term developed by The Heritage Foundation, as "qanon but for redditors".

Kingturtle = (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Killing vs. murder

I am guessing the this article is the Killing of... and not the Murder of... because there hasn't been a verdict in a trial yet? Since we are not calling the article Murder of..., should we also remove categories with the word murder in it? Or is that okay? Kingturtle = (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)