::: FWIW, I disagree completely with {{u|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. [[User:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b>]][[Special:Contribs/Flipandflopped|<sup style="color:purple">and</sup>]][[User talk:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:lime">Flopped</b>]] [[Wikipedia:Civility|<b style="color:grey"> ツ</b>]] 18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::: FWIW, I disagree completely with {{u|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. [[User:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b>]][[Special:Contribs/Flipandflopped|<sup style="color:purple">and</sup>]][[User talk:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:lime">Flopped</b>]] [[Wikipedia:Civility|<b style="color:grey"> ツ</b>]] 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. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b><span style="color:black">Bim</span>]] <sup style="color:black">[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</sup> 18:26, 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. --[[User:ZimZalaBim|<span style="color:black">Zim</span><b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b><span style="color:black">Bim</span>]] <sup style="color:black">[[User talk:ZimZalaBim|talk]]</sup> 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|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. [[User:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:Teal;">Flip</b>]][[Special:Contribs/Flipandflopped|<sup style="color:purple">and</sup>]][[User talk:Flipandflopped|<b style="color:lime">Flopped</b>]] [[Wikipedia:Civility|<b style="color:grey"> ツ</b>]] 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Not done: please establish a consensus before taking any actions and doing so -
It depends on this matter. The photo must either be in the public domain, or be under the Creative Commons line. As always, Wikipedia allows non-free content and should be used at a minimum. Please talk with others before making the final decision. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡🗨📝01:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a shot (no pun intended) to ask UnitedHealth Group if they're willing to release a photograph of him under a free license. They did release a freely-licensed image of Andrew Witty not long ago. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was seen near the crime scene and he was seen uptown. I don't think that's worth showing on a map, unless this was a situation where there were multiple murders or attacks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the timeline section of this article and the linked outside news articles in my op? There are a fair number of spotting and movements in the time leading up to the shooting, so many that CBS, Newsweek and Al Jazeera all made maps of their own. Maximilian775 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).
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)[reply]
"Assassination" come on, this isn't Tupac or Biggie Smalls.
Photo of Hostel at 103rd and Amsterdam
This might come in handy - even if it's not the main point of the story here.
The news item that drew my attention to the place is at New york Times. about 1:30 pm NY time,
HI NYC Hostel at 104th and Amsterdam, NYC (103rd is the other end of the building, to the right) where suspect was photographed last night according to the latest news release. The photo of the building is not from last night, it's from May 19, 2011, I took it. See Association Residence Nursing Home for more about the building.
It is widely WP: UNDUE for the article to focus on Reddit & Twitter troll posts surrounding his death. The vast majority of Americans do not have an established opinion of Thompson at all and the posts appear to be a series of gripes about the American healthcare system in general.
The article wasn't "focusing" on social media posts at all. It was one or two sentences in a paragraph discussing reactions. Also, the positive reaction to his death has been reported on by many notable publications. I don't know how you can argue otherwise unless you're bothered by the celebration of his murder and are taking this personally. Eseress (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article does not "focus" on social media posts; there are a few sentences on it, which seems like due weight considering that the social media reaction was covered on the front page of the New York Times. The characterization of anyone as a "troll" is meaningless and unsubstantiated, and therefore an invalid criticism of the text that was removed. Einsof (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would leave some potential sources for a social media reaction paragraph here:
I think the version of the "Reactions" section you removed was unduly puffed-up and gossipy. However, given that multiple reliable sources have reported these reactions, I believe that they merit a short mention to provide context for the political and cultural climate this shooting took place in. I saw a shorter version of the paragraph discussing online reactions that was only 1 or 2 sentences—I think that would be appropriate. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the hours following the assassination, many American social media users shared their celebrations of the event, and contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system.
The problem is that those posts are ultimately not about Thompson. They're about the American healthcare system. There's many other public figures that have received significant dislike on social media (David Rockefeller, almost any political leader, etc.) that do not have these things mentioned on their respective pages and it seems to be the norm to not include
If a major public figure makes a statement saying so, then yes, I would support mentioning it in the context of the article. I do not believe that Reddit or Twitter posts (or mention of them in news outlets) merits mention. Random people online making statements is not news.
I think most people are glad he's dead. I sure am. And I think that that's relevant. The fact that so many Americans, a majority of those aware of it I would wager, are celebrating his assassination is absolutely worthy of emphasis. This sort of groundswell is the sort of thing that tends to indicate a massive shift in the trajectory of popular opinion. It indicates a rejection of, or a least a cynicism about, our system and its mechanisms for ensuring proper redress of grievances. This is unquestionably worthy of mention on Wikipedia. If it isn't mentioned now, it'll damn sure be mentioned the next time some CEO gets put down. George Mucus (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think most people are..."
"I would wager"
"I sure am"
What you "think" or "would wager" does not matter and is irrelevant unless you can provide reliable sources (e.g. a poll by a distinguished polling organization). Otherwise, while we can reference some of the coverage and prominent reactions to the event, we wouldn't be able to make a claim about what "most" people or Americans think or believe. Firecat93 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so many of these posts would have been made within a few hours if it weren't for the shooting, so it makes sense to include them. Also, Henry Kissinger's page includes criticism of him on social media following his death. Iamnotcapableofthis (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't seem like a tenable position. Social media is incredibly important nowadays, it is one of the main ways information is disseminated. WP:UNDUE means "don't give a viewpoint, facet, or idea more emphasis than it has in RSes," not "exclude something mentioned by RSes because it feels too Online™." The schadenfreude people expressed in posting about the Titan submersible implosion was also not just about the people who happened to be on the sub—their reactions to the event were a microcosm of their larger attitudes.
You're right that basically no one knew or cared about Thompson before this event, the same way most people didn't care about Stockton Rush before the implosion. Maybe it would be WP:UNDUE to have a section about people celebrating Thompson's death on the "Brian Thompson (businessman)" article, but this isn't the "Brian Thompson (businessman)" article—it's the "Killing of Brian Thompson" article. It's indisputable that people are reacting this way to his death, and it's indisputable that RSes are reporting on it. I see no reason to be so resolutely against including any mention in the "Reactions" section beyond an unreasonable bias against acknowledging social media in articles. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the posts are generally not about Thompson. This article from the New York Times lists five comments mentioning Thompson directly in addition to other comments expressing discontent with the state of the healthcare system. Even if most posts weren't talking about Thompson directly, the public outcry appears to be notable enough for several major news outlets to create articles about the topic. For example, the article on Shinzo Abe's assasination mentions the increased scrutiny of the Unification Church and the Liberal Democratic Party in the public response—not just the public's thoughts on Abe himself. This article deserves a similar section as well. Qbox673 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would also propose adding Abe's assassination to the see also section, healthcare companies have already announced changes to their policies similar to the japanese government turning against the Moonies. Its entirely normal for articles on highly publicized killings like this to include a broader context and public reactions. — jonas (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
However, entirely separate from that argument, I don't think an image of an alleged person of interest on this article in the first place. There is no solid public evidence that the pictured person is the shooter, and putting their picture under the subheading "Assailant" could easily cross into defamation, a BLP violation, or even a r/findbostonbombers situation.
Thing is, those images were released by the NYPD. I'm fine with them being removed for copyright, but if some witch hunt was to get started, it would be the police's fault and not Wikipedia's. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the moral world doesn't work like that. If thee picture is not the perp and the wrong guy gets lynched, we are (or might be) a link in the chain in the events that led to that event. The NYPD does make mistakes (e.g., murdering someone for selling cigarettes, which I would call a mistake). Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. They still haven’t nailed down a concrete identity of the shooter, so any images should be taken with a grain of salt.
B. As many has pointed out, they look like completely different people united only by the fact that they’re wearing a hoodie.
C. BLPCRIME
D. In the age of body cameras, are we really still considering the police a reliable source? A notable source certainly, but I would not say a reliable one. Snokalok (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early articles referencing words found on shell casings gave 3 words, but many sources seem to have reduced to 2 words, "delay, depose", quoting law enforcement sources responding to an earlier article giving 3. No current sources state 4 words, so I think that paragraph under Investigation needs to be updated. Chronoste (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices."
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
@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 • c20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 • c22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Basically all the reporting as to the firearm is speculation of varying levels of expertise. Until more information is released, it's just not sure. Maximilian775 (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "racking" the slide functions to "clear" the spent casing from the breech. They're basically synonymous, it's just a question of whether that is part of the normal operation of the firearm (IE if a welrod or other factory-made integrally suppressed firearm was used) or is a malfunction caused by a modified firearm with a poorly installed, perhaps improvised, silencer. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, to me the term "cycle" would be more accurate. Going for a balance of what the sources call it and being accurate in terms of terminology. We'll see how information progresses as the investigation goes on. Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maximilian775 I think you overestimate me, but I do know just enough to say that the ABC News source statement "Police believe the shooter used a B&T Station Six, known in Great Britain as a Welrod pistol, according to police sources" is an objectively inaccurate description of actual firearms (though it's possible an NYPD official said it or was misunderstood). The B&T is a modern firearm that operates similarly to a Welrod, but they are guns separated by roughly 70 years in terms of production. The B&T is almost certainly not what is being used here, as they are not exactly proliferate and have a different form factor. This is also not a Welrod, as those are absurdly expensive collectors' items and often chambered in .32 ACP (not the 9mm found at the scene). As best I can make out from the footage, it's a conventional semi-automatic pistol that is repeatedly jamming. More accurate information and appraisals are probably forthcoming from other sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To the bit about cycling, that would probably be the safest term here. Clearling can imply a malfunction, and I don't think we know enough right now to verifiably say "the shooter's gun malfunctioned". I think it did, but I'm not a reliable source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest keeping the reference that authorities have speculated it's a Station Six, but that this has been disputed by firearm experts.
Extremely knowledgeable experts have disputed the hypothesis that a Station Six, VP9, or Welrod was used. The cycling motion and position of his hand suggests a normal semi-auto handgun with a slide, as does the very large amount of gas coming from the ejection port upon firing. These Weldrod-like pistols do not let notable gas out of the ejection port until you cycle the weapon, and the cycling action is very different from what it shown in footage. The operator's hand should be well behind, not on top of, the weapon to cycle it.
There aren't really all that many Station Six in circulation and they require a Form 4 ATF background check and tax stamp, which requires fingerprints and a photo. Unless it was borrowed/stolen, they would have already been able to quickly match the physical description to the very small number of owners. While it could have been stolen, the odds of that are extremely low given its relatively rare nature.
I've just edited the paragraph about the weapon, and how it seems to malfunction after each shot. I've added an update from the New York Times: Law enforcement was investigating a B&T Station Six pistol sold in Connecticut, this was widely reported with various details. Apparently the buyer was located by law enforcement and is not a suspect. I'm leaving the reference to the B&T Station Six because it garnered a fair amount of attention, and because firearms experts are still discussing it, but often to compare it to a semiautomatic pistol that is failing to cycle, which seems to be a more popular hypothesis right now. The CNN article cited has a lot of detail and analyzes the video, if it doesn't actually discuss both types of pistol action then I can cite an additional source. Fluoborate (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Type of weapon - Likely semiautomatic
I've just commented on the "Jam" section of this Talk page, but this is a relatively different topic.
It seems possibly reasonable to include reporting by firearms experts who tend to agree the firearm is probably a semiautomatic 9mm pistol with a suppressor (silencer) added, and it is failing to cycle.
The single most convincing argument is the uncensored video - after the first and second shots, a puff of smoke is visible coming from the breech or ejection port area. Smoke would not exit the breech while firing a Welrod or B&T Station Six, because the breech remains locked while firing. On a semiautomatic pistol, the breech would open while firing, even if it doesn't recoil far enough to cycle the action.
The hand movements to cycle a Welrod or Station Six are also different, they are cycled by twisting and pulling a disc at the back. It's not clear if this would be visible in the video. Some people also claim the visual features of the gun rule out a Welrod or Station Six, but I'm not convinced the video is clear enough to show that, either.
Fluoborate (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Welrod and Brügger & Thomet VP9, as both speculated by police and news outlets to be the weapon, are not straight-pull actions. They use a rotating bolt. I don't think there exists a combination straight-pull action manual/bolt-action pistol. Just looks like he's clearing jams on the video. SmittenGalaxy|talk!00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he probably used a glock with a shitty suppressor, and that supressor didn't have a nielsen device (most likely DIY) so the gun wasn't cycling properly 86.31.166.252 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a B&T Station 6, that is misinformation, and there is no such thing as a "B&T Station 6 VP9"; as the VP9 is made by Heckler and Koch. It is likely a standard semi-automatic handgun lacking a booster on the suppressor. The Station 6 has is a single shot, with a rotating bolt. The slide does not pull straight back like a traditional handgun. Jrr1221 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed misinformation then ok, but your second statement is incorrect, the Station SIX VP9 is a very real thing. Heckler and Koch does have a pistol called the VP9 (H&K VP9), but so does B&T. The Station SIX is a variant of the B&T VP9, there are not completely different things, and is discussed in the article on it. Plectiscus (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a moot point to be honest, because it's not called "B&T Station Six VP9". There is a "B&T VP9" which has never been sold, imported or produced in the United State; or carried any level of VP9 marketing/naming in the US. So no there is not a "B&T Station Six VP9". It's never carried that name together. They are different variants sold in different markets, with different names. Jrr1221 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I didn't order it exactly correctly good for you to notice but like you said there are variants of the B&T VP9 and he could have used one of those. The face that it was never imported to the US is irrelevant as for all we know he could have brought it in overseas. Plectiscus (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LesbianTiamat: Hi, about your recent edit re gun: Not contesting anything you've done. "Veterinary pistol" is an intentionally tongue-in-cheek name for the initial version of a particular model of a very literal assassin gun by the marketing-savvy Swiss gun manufacturer Brügger & Thomet. While a commercial product, it was not available to individuals in the USA because it's too much of an assassin's gun, detachable grip and all (intended to make the actual gun part of the gun look like an indistinct black tube, often said to resemble a bicycle pump). Then they made a more sellable variant with some non-crucial technical differences, the most obvious one being that the grip doesn't separate from the gun (but they've marked where to cut the plastic tho). This variant which can be bought by individuals in the USA is called Station SIX-9. VP9 (the "veterinary pistol" ... ha-ha) and the Station SIX are just two iterations of the same product. When the media talk about the so-called veterinary pistol they talk about either version of this company's assassin pistol. The police are talking about the latter version which is actually available to individuals in the USA because the chance that the shooter had the initial can't-get version is astronomically low. In my opinion the words "veterinary pistol" should not exist in this article unless it becomes clear that the weapon used was B&T VP9, and maybe not even then (should probably just say "B&T VP9").—Alalch E.01:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably worth mentioning for some perspective that VP9, the original "veterinary pistol" (it's important to remember that this name is an official joke by the manufacturer), was sold in parts kits in small numbers and was being bought as a collector's item in the NFA gun market (drastically harder to obtain than a consumer gun). Before it ran out of stock, it cost something like $5000. So if it were this exact gun (i.e. the original variant), that would really be extraordinary. Much less so if its Station SIX-9. It's also good to remember that this original variant called the "veterinary pistol" is more of an assassin's pistol by virtue of its features than the latter Station SIX-9, and the latter is almost explicitly called "assassin's gun" because Station SIX appears to be a play on Station IX, the place where they made James Bond-like assassin stuff during World War II, including the spiritual predecessor of this product, Welrod. So whenever you see media outlets repeating the phrase "veterinary gun" in a context that may suggest that this is something used on farms, it's just the journalist not understanding the joke. —Alalch E.02:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who is not super knowledgable about guns this is extraordinarily amazing contextual information. I wish the news would interview you ( @Alalch E.) lol. Part of me kinda hopes it is the original variant just for the surrealness. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, if this was not the weapon (and it turns out that the gun was a jamming semi-automatic pistol), then this information is not contextual information :) I think User:Pbritti and User:Jay Phelps made good comments above, near the start of this section. —Alalch E.14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. EF517:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. EF518:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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:
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?
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)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"He took a cab to the New York Hilton and spent about half an hour walking in the area of the hotel before checking into a hostel on the Upper West Side, the chief said."
"The gunman left the hostel at 5:30 a.m. on Dec. 4 and rode a bicycle toward midtown, Chief Kenny said."
"At 5:41 a.m., he arrived at the Hilton and began wandering the area near the hotel, walking back and forth on West 54th Street, before going into a Starbucks, where he bought a bottle of water and a snack bar."
"After shooting Mr. Thompson at 6:44 a.m., he got back on the bike and made it into Central Park four minutes later."
"He left the park at 6:56 a.m., still on the bicycle."
"Surveillance cameras captured footage of him, still on the bicycle, two minutes later at 86th Street and Columbus Avenue."
"By 7 a.m. he was still on 86th street, no longer on the bicycle."
"He then he took a cab northbound to a bus terminal near the George Washington Bridge."
What to make of the claim that he was seen at 5am carrying what appeared to be a bike battery?
Wednesday, 5 a.m. - The suspected shooter was seen on video outside the nearby Frederick Douglass Houses public housing project, carrying what appears to be an e-bike battery, police sources told ABC News.
And where in the NYT timeline is his 6:15am emergence from the subway?
6:15 a.m. - Surveillance footage reviewed by police shows someone who appears to be the suspect exiting the subway before the shooting at the 57th Street station on the F line, just blocks from the shooting scene.
None of this meshes with either the NYT timeline above, or the current timeline in this article. Someone needs to compose a complete and verified timeline. 24.22.134.45 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images released by the federal government are allowed to be used as fair use (that might not be the technical term). I feel that the WP:BLPCRIME policy is more so related to crimes that are at the scale of local or state law enforcement but since it is also federal I feel that it would be okay to include since the individual is named as the suspect. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Unidentified Assailant" to the info box because I think that's important info, but I'm not sure if some combination of the above and "unkown" or "perpetrator" would be better. (Also, I'm relatively inexperienced here, so I'm wondering if there is a deliberate reason why my addition had not already been made.) Trilomonk (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assailant's identity seems pretty essential to (at least the reporting of) the case here. Going by the principle that Wikipedia should be an unbiased reflection of society I think the article and its info box should include the fact that the perpetrator is still at large. If authorities make arrests, then obviously we should be tactful in describing the suspects identity but as is I stand by my edit. Trilomonk (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images in the response section
If you are going to put images in the response section, please make sure they have to do with the response. I've removed images from that section that are 5 to 15 years old. I've also removed a chart about healthcare statistics. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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 ..."
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The weapon used is not confirmed to be a B&T Station Six, and video evidence supports that it is not. The B&T Station Six is a single shot, manually operated, rotating bolt pistol. None of these traits were displayed in the security footage and is more likely a semi-automatic pistol with a tilt barrel design, with the lack of a suppressor booster.
Change "B&T Station 6 Pistol" to "Suppressed Semi-Automatic Pistol"; source article says "police believe" not a confirmation, and video evidence shows it is likely not the B&T Station 6. Jrr1221 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "Suppressed 9x19mm pistol." With the source saying it "may" be the B&T Station Six, I agree with your request; I'm leaving out the "semi-automatic" since that seems to be a point of debate, at least until we have reliable sources confirming it. With the B&T Station Six being bolt-action, that seems to be contested. Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The associated Press is reporting that "Police were looking into the possibility that the weapon was a veterinary pistol, which is a weapon commonly used on farms and ranches if an animal has to be euthanized quietly, Kenny said — though he stressed that hadn’t been confirmed." Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the Health insurance companies' removal of their leadership pages...
...their leadership pages complete with the names and pictures of the corporate executives are still available and preserved on the Internet Archive. I was going to add that fact to the article, but due to its protected status and my lack of interest in creating an account, someone else here with an account can do that instead. Would you please? Thanks. --2600:100A:B055:6AA6:7018:B0F6:5D9:10A1 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, rare footage of a modern killing of a high-power individual in stunning grainy, heavily-compressed 360p!
You can barely see what's going on. I've seen in it in higher quality, but during the intense media storm, it's hard to come by anything specific without spending hours on it. If anyone comes across a high-resolution version, please let me know, or just go ahead and replace the video file. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be the most bikeshedding thing ever, but...
I'm interested to hear others' thoughts about this: right now, we refer to the suspect with masculine pronouns throughout the article owing to the police describing them as a white man. However, is it correct – given what we know about them is minimal – to take a police statement which identifiers the assailant's likely sex and use that to identify their gender? Is it possible that instead of using "he/his", we should be using "they/their" since we don't really know? I'm sorry if this is genuinely the dumbest thing ever; it just got me thinking. I could honestly land either way on this, which is why I brought it up here. TheTechnician27(Talk page)02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNT. Reliable sources refer to him as a male and I've seen nothing to challenge that, unless of course the actual perpetrator were to come forward and say otherwise, which seems unlikely. Departure– (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. When I checked a few articles, I hadn't seen pronouns used for the suspect at all, but now that I'm reading ABC News' and BBC News' from the 'Assailant' section, I see now that they use those pronouns. Seems good to me. TheTechnician27(Talk page)03:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're supposing the circulating image of the smiling man is the assailant (which is the present consensus), and the hostel clerk that spoke with the subject has affirmed that he is male, I think that's enough rationale to stick with male pronouns for now. BenjaminKZTalk02:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Monopoly money
I don't think the image of Monopoly money is beneficial to the article, it's not the money found in the bag, it's just the photo from the Monopoly money article. If readers want to know what Monopoly money looks like, they can click on the link to that page. I'm going to WP:Be bold and remove it, but I'm posting this in the talk page so if someone disagrees they can talk about it here. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second two paragraphs in the Background section seem to be more related to Brian Thompson the person himself (2nd Paragraph) and UnitedHealthcare the company itself (3rd Paragraph) and I suggest that they be moved to their respective articles. As a clear motive is identified in the future this info may be relevant to include but for now I think it should be removed to avoid any WP:COMBINE issues. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism by user:wikiuser815
All citations provided point to a widespread positive public opinion to Brian Thompson's death. Additionally this user is removing work that has been correctly cited. Article should be reverted to user:ich revision. Aqaz110 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the description of the reactions to the death described as being mixed? By any objective metric the reactions to his death have been overwhelmingly positive. 12:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.238.248 (talk)
Absolutely agree. The citations also support the positive reaction to his death. This is vandalism by user:wikiuser815 and should be reverted. Aqaz110 (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources have been discussing Andrew Witty's comments on the shooting and public response, specifically a leaked video of him criticizing the public sentiment against Brain Thompson's death and United Health increasing security as a direct result:
Given his proximity to the case and relation with Thompson, they might be worth adding. There are more critical sources floating around of Witty's message, including some that criticize it directly, but I've avoided putting them here since they are not likely relevant enough and could run afoul with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In all fairness, calling Willy's leaked message 'controversial' would likely suffice but it's a rather moot point in my eyes.
The graphic caption says "Claim denial rates by insurance companies, as of December 5, 2024" however, that's inaccurate. That's when the user downloaded the graphic. If you go to the source URL linked in the graphic, it says "Company claim denial rates are based on CMS Transparency in Coverage public-use files (PUFs) downloaded on March 1, 2024, covering the period from Jan. 1, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022." So those claim denial rates are as of the year 2022, not 2024. -- Datareader29 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention heightened discussion of jury nullification?
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)[reply]
If you are going to put images in the response section, please make sure they have to do with actual responses to the killing. I've removed images from that section that are 5 to 15 years old. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the Sanders quote is about healthcare reform, he did not say it in response to the killing. Please keep it out of the response section. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41, I noticed in your edit that a couple of inline references were removed from the paragraph beginning with "Within days, ...". This looks like it was accidental, but I would like to double check if this was on purpose or not. (If it was an accident, I think it would be best to add those references back - that paragraph could use more citations). Thanks for your edit! -- WrenFalcon (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slapped the article with a current events tag. NYPD are releasing frequent updates regarding the manhunt for the killer, such as possible whereabouts, CCTV images, etc. New information is being released daily. Synorem (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that User:Firecat93 has been reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version that removes content that has anything to do with the Social media reaction to the shooting because, according to edit summaries, they think it is subjectively "irrelevant", "improper", "not relevant", "irrelevant x2", "irrelevant", "not worthy of inclusion" without claiming how the change is detrimental. Firecat93 doesn't refersto relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Using all caps when reverting a reversion and accusing another redditor of adding irrelevant information twice in one edit summary borders on WP:PA.
See bullet points 2, 3, 4 and 6 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Firecat93 has also added an image of Bernie Sanders at a 2017 press conference to a section that may or may not have relevance to the page, but the edit summary that it does have "relevance" to a section that does not mention BErnie Sanders feels like a thought terminating cliche. There is voluminous WP:RS out there about the public reaction to the suspect's resemblance to Timothee Chalamet, and the unwillingness of internest sleuths/crowdsourced investigators to find the suspect, but Firecat93's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR has had a chilling effect on my willingness to post any of them. I'm asking for a WP:CONSENSUS on whether these observations have merit or not. Kire1975 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I honestly do appreciate it, and If you had personally reached out to me about your concerns, I would have also responded agreeably. Nevertheless, I am grateful that you've shared your concern here.
I do believe that it's unfair to say that I have been acting to "protect a certain version that removes content that has anything to do with the Social media reaction to the shooting". There is still plenty of existing content in the article about the public and social media reaction in the Reaction section. I did, however, remove a few portions. Given that you've shared this concern, if any of these portions are added back again, I will not remove them once more. I hope that this commitment will resolve this issue.
At the same time, here's why I made the changes you referred to:
I removed the references to the look-alike contest, "assailant" (should be referred to as suspect, not assailant, which was how suspect was mistakenly referred to in the article) resemblance to Timothee Chalamet, and observations by online 4chan and Reddit "sleuths" that were described as "crowdsourcing investigations", as I didn't believe that they met WP:RELEVANCE and Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. I would argue that they give a disproportionate emphasis to marginal details about the public response (which may be better suited in tabloid magazine - WP:NOTGOSSIP). If you add them back, however, I will not remove them again, although I would appreciate the feedback of other editors.
I did also remove the photo, "An example of the public hybristophilia on social media," which is described as "Own work: a collage using an undated photo released by the New York Police Department." It had already been agreed upon not to include images of the suspect, and this wasn't a social media image, as described, but a "collage" created by a Wikimedia contributor using a photo that may or may not be properly licensed. See description: "This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source and copyright information for all work incorporated in this file is missing." "Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this notice was added and the uploader was notified on 9 December 2024." For these reasons, I do, in fact, believe that it would be inappropriate to include this image.
I believe that I simply followed the existing consensus and instructions listed in the note on the page (which I did not add) - "DO NOT ADD PHOTOGRAPHS OR PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION OF ANY SUSPECT WITHOUT SEEKING TALK PAGE CONSENSUS. WP:BLPCRIME SETS A HIGH BAR FOR THE ADDITION OF SUCH MATERIAL."
I agree that I should probably make my edit descriptions clearer and ask consensus before making major changes. I also agree that I should not have written the word, "ITSELF", in all CAPs in one of my edit summaries. At the same time, I have tried to be cordial (e.g. "Let's make sure only to include relevant information"). I'm sorry for the times that I haven't been. I also apologize for not directly discussing my concerns about some of the content in the article's Reaction section in the talk page before removing them.
@Kire1975, I do not have a personal grudge against you. I hope that we can resolve this cordially. I will be more mindful going forward. Thanks again.
Finally, much of the feedback that I've received for my contributions to this page have been positive (I've included an example below). I hope that some of my contributions have also been helpful.
------------------
Thanks for your help on the Brian Thompson American healthcare system paragraph!
Ah, this really is a beautiful moment in wikipedia history. Everyone coming together to write the most thorough article possible on this event Snokalok (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply][reply]
I appreciate the cordial response here. It is very cordial. I also understand why you would think that the Timothee Chalamet reference might be [[WP:NOTGOSSIP] but with more context, I believe it is 100% WP:DUE. The public reaction to it is extraordinary and notable. I'll be adding WP:RS at the end of the comment to back up my theory, but it is plain as the tip of my nose that the the shooter lookalike contest in Washington Square Park is a direct callback to the Timothee Chalamet lookalike contest in Washington Square Park that went viral in non-tabloid media just a few weeks ago. Other reliable, secondary and verifiable RS about the circus-like public reaction include but are not limited to:
Thanks again. Your cordial responsde might actually be a historic event in my career as a Wikipedian who sometimes picks fights with other editors, but I probably shouldn't poke the bear anymore. I'm definitely not trying to take anything personal against you either. I hope this helps the page. It's very late here. I gotta go to bed. Kire1975 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "The suspect was described as being "extremely camera savvy,"[45] and as of December 8 has not been apprehended.[4]" to "The suspect was described as being "extremely camera savvy,"[45] and as of December 9 has not been apprehended.[4]" 49.145.161.34 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients' denied healthcare." to "In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients denied healthcare." The apostrophe included erroneously alters the meaning of the sentence, making 'healthcare' the subject of the sentence experiencing harm or death. BrokeBoneGrinder (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Motive box
Why is the motive box filled out as “justice” and other items when it was previously “unknown” plus those things?
I was thinking the same thing. Public response and interpretation is one thing, but we're supposing the killer's intent when it could otherwise be misdirection. BenjaminKZTalk14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it back to unknown and left in the possible language. I also took out the "justice" motivation because that language seems very inflammatory and unwarranted. HorseDonkey (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 (3)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Man being questioned in Pennsylvania found w/ gun, silencer, and fake New Jersey ID
Article. Is this worth adding? Even if it doesn't end up being the assailant, it is significant as the first person being questioned in relation to the killing. Chronoste (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a tabloid trying to sell papers, and we don't have the urgency than news media have. Someone being arrested for gun charges and being identified by NY police as a person of interest does not seem sufficient per WP:BLP to name him as The Suspected Assailant. If he is formally charged, in court, then we could add that fact, stating that he is just charged, not that he is the culprit. Even if someone is convicted, best practice would be to sayy he was convicted, or found guilty, as opposed to saying he IS guilty. Edison (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Man held for questioning in Pennsylvania, sources say
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The arrested suspect's name is being published by several news outlets, but doesn't seem to be confirmed by police. Per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT, we probably shouldn't publish the name until the police confirm. There is a press conference in a few hours.
I'm of the opinion that if and when Luigi Mangione is charged, we amend the infobox to say "1" under "Accused". Until then, he's a mere person of interest. In short, I agree with you. BOTTO (T•C)18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darth Stabro: Is that the guy whose name you put in the article? I don't know, but the New York Times gives it as the name of the suspect. Now please quit reverting me, you are over WP:3RR. I've put in 90% of the info about the suspect. You just keep putting it at the bottom of the section, which is not useful at all. If you want to put it at the bottom of the section, just call an RFC below. Smallbones(smalltalk)18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of when I originally posted, I hadn't seen any official confirmation on any news sites. With confirmation by the commissioner, I'd be more comfortable with the name being there. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says this literally at the top: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. We have significant reliably sourced statements that all point at him by name. He has achieved notoriety for this shooting long before being named as the suspected shooter. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude the name. —Locke Cole • t • c00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SUSPECT says we should "seriously consider not including material... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime", not that we should never include it. For something with this much media attention I think we should include Mangione's name, some background info, say that he was arrested "in connection" with the crime, and note that he hasn't been charged with anything (what NYT does). Considering that his name has already been published in NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, Forbes, Axios, BBC, USA Today, Wired, The Independent, CBS, The Times, The Intercept, People, and New York Magazine (all reliable sources), I really don't see a point in leaving him out of the Wikipedia page. – MW(t•c)00:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus" may have been wrong; if so, my apologies. My main concern was that the restored paragraph is essentially a (less-optimally worded) duplicate of the last paragraph in the same section. NapoliRoma (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Police have confirmed that Luigi Mangione is the suspect who was arrested and multiple reliable outlets (BBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) have published the name. This is a notable event and at this point Luigi Mangione has become a public figure. I suggest that we say something along the lines of "a person of interest, who police have identified as 29 year old Luigi Mangione, was detained...". Rayanblaq14 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ashamed that Wikipedia's article is so terrible. Those who control the article have santitized it so much that the suspect's section of the article is far less detailed that in the news. Usually, it's the other way around because Wikipedians collect info from various sources.
OK, I get it that these controlling editors don't want to put the guy's name in the article. But let there be other information. For example, if we know his school, we still can't identify a specific person.
Do not trash Wikipedia by making the article crap. This is already being done by restricting what is being put in. The Article Controlling Editors just remove good faith edits of others and, in doing so, ruin Wikipedia. Bolding is not shouting per WP:SHOUT.
. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thread retitled from "Include the name of the person of interest".
WP:BLPCRIME does not say we cannot name the person of interest. It says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime." A reasonable editor may seriously consider not including the name but conclude that the fact that the suspect is named at the top of the home pages of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and NPR means that Wikipedia should also include that information. --JFHutson (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The police released the name of the suspect after the arrest. That is a notable part of the events that have unfolded, and certainly has value in being included in the article. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if Richard Jewell was alive and committed the alleged crime NOW in 2024, then even though eventually he might still be cleared as suspect and exonerated, but you still have to create and update the entry, and not necessarily waiting for that long to say be charged specifically with this and that...remember, at first, when a suspect is arrested, the person might be charged with one count, but later on with multiple counts...
Because sometimes if the developments moved in warp speed(like days ago Fall of Damascus and Collapse of Assad's regime), then you don't even have time to really say "wait at least until"...because if you finally get the confirmation later, the development is already on another level, and your confirmation is simply outdated again. Bf0325 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is rather too typical in circumstances like these for there to be a race to include emerging details - in particular an emerging detail that doesn't really change the story. It's just a name at this stage - it's what happened that is important, not the name. It can wait. Apparently he goes by numerous pseudonyms, so what does it really matter just now? It's all a bit reminiscent of people who post "First" in the comments section of popular video sharing channels. There is no rush - all in good time. The identify of the person of interest is positively no secret, and the race to include it here on Wikipedia is all a bit meaningless. The name is probably the most widely shared/published name on the internet at this moment, and it adds nothing to the encyclopaedic quality of the article to be in a race to add it. The article meanwhile can be added to by the inclusion of important, newly emerged details. The suspect's name is just a name - it doesn't alter the facts of what happened/is happening. I wish the editors who are so intent on arguing the toss about whether it's permissible to include a name could focus on tasks that matter in an the encyclopaedic sense instead of battling it out to be the first to add the largely irrelevant detail of a name which the whole world already knows. I get annoyed when editors jump in with WP:DONTDOTHIS or WP:DONTDOTHAT or WP:NOTANEWSPAPER - it's as ridiculous as the Pitch Perfect films where everything is prefixed by ACCA: except those films are pretty funny and the nerdiness is self-effacing humour - but for once the fascination with quoting WP:POLICIES makes sense to me. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see the suspected assailant referred to as 'Assailant.' This is disappointing to see in Wikipedia, since we are scrupulous about being fair and not making explicit judgments before he has made been put through a trial.Dogru144 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Although he was caught red-handed and is clearly as guilty as sin, he deserves due legal process and the presumption of innocence. Am I allowed to make a tongue-in-cheek remark like this provided I don't name any names or have I just landed myself a lifetime block? Being serious - doesn't the article merely talk about the assailant at the moment, as opposed to giving the alleged identity of the assailant? Isn't it kind of obvious that there was an assailant or are you suggesting there is only a suspicion that someone held the gun that fired the bullets that killed Brian Thompson? It's only when someone says "the assailant is suspected to be" that the problem arises. I think the Wikimapedia Foundation is on a safe legal footing to state unequivocally that there was an assailant. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luigi Mangione has been charged with second-degree murder in New York. Am I correct in saying that this is enough for Mangione's name to be added to the page as a suspect? Jbvann0506:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because of how many editors provided arguments against including the name for now, that would probably be a good idea, if only for the sake of putting an end to the debate in a well-defined manner. But the fact that one is needed is pretty pathetic. LVMH11 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a vote. Just because a larger number of people make really bad arguments doesn't mean we need to listen to them. —Locke Cole • t • c08:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The accused is no longer a "person of interest" and has been formally charged with murder. This means that it should be ok to name him in the article, as all of the world's media has done. Things have moved on since yesterday. ♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)09:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Assailant's identity paragraph
Smallbones, if you insist that the current event be at the top, then the rest of that paragraph is essentially unnecessary. It makes no sense to have the paragraphs about the suspect description and beginning of the manhunt afterwards. It should be chronological. Furthermore, per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT, the name of the suspect probably should not be on the page yet, and per the comments added (not by me!) to the page, it should have a talk page consensus. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs18:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sorry - with all the other edits doing on I only saw the suspect's name pop up in the top-positioned paragraph upon one of your reverts, I hadn't seen it originally edited in by someone else which was apparently the case. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs19:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see a section that claims the brutal murder of this man as "widely" celebrated with no sources whatsoever and seems extremely biased to me. Zefalls (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will not be "instantly banned" for removing uncited material. It's in Wikipedia's policies at WP:V that "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". It's possible someone may disagree and restore it, and then a discussion on the talk page can take place about finding reliable sources and making sure the text aligns with the sources. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with other editors that social media posts should not be included in great detail. Nor should he be described as a "folk hero" in the introduction. People are confusing Wikipedia with activism here. My personal opinions aside, the article comes across as predominantly positive about him being assassinated, which is greatly worrying. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right well since you’re new, I’ll say wikipedia has policies on notability and POV edits thar I’d encourage you to read, and the vast majority of editors on this page over the last several days have contributed to sections detailing the public response, so clearly consensus is in favor of its inclusion. Saying you think it shouldn’t be included because you don’t like that it platforms a popular POV you disagree with is called POVPUSHING and wikipedia has rules against it. Snokalok (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worrying or not, covering public response to this is part of the story. As I recall, the article didn't describe him as a folk hero, just said that he had been described as a folk hero - a source-able claim. HelenaBertrand (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RomanianObserver41 I agree that previous versions of this article were grossly biased/activistic, but as of right now it seems to be in a better position, factually stating that social media is reveling while the family is mourning. ypn^221:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A libelous image was inserted into the article that implied that Bernie Sanders supported the assassination of Brian Thompson. This has been removed under WP: BLP policy. The consensus is to not add any pictures outside of the crime scene for now. I agree. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Right now the consensus seems to be that per WP:SUSPECT, the name of the person of interest who has been arrested is not to be included. As of right now, he hasn't even been charged with anything in relation to the crime, just a gun crime in PA. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seems like we shouldn't have it added until the suspect is at very least arrested for the crime in the article, at which point a more full profile of him will likely be added as in other "Killing of ..." articles. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That rule merely states that articles should not make a determination of the suspect's guilt, not that information about suspects shouldn't be included. Reliable sources are clear that it is highly probable that his beliefs and life history are why he committed the killing. The suspect had a manifesto. To not mention this in the article is madness. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been charged with committing the killing yet though, so we shouldn't be building out a profile of someone who is currently just a person of interest, however likely it may seem to be that it's him. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is highly probable that his beliefs and life history are why he committed the killing That's the problem though, we don't know if the person arrested is the killer. We should wait for more details. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The POI uploaded a YouTube video 2 hours ago. It is titled "The Truth", with a 60 second countdown. It says "If you see this, I'm already under arrest", and ends with "Soon... Dec 11th". The channel was created in January. This is related to my previous thread on WP:BLPCRIME, but this feels much more... important than social media. I've attached the video below, there is no MSM coverage as far as I'm aware yet. I do not believe this should be added to the article as it could still be a hoax (if the channel was hacked or renamed), but everyone should be aware of it.
It's most likely just a renamed account. The video was uploaded after his arrest too. Not saying its not his account but unlikely. Maybe wayback machine can help. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taken down "already". Pretty sad to see something like that was possible in the first place, I mean this is supposed to be "quantum computing" Google. Looks like someone tried to capitalize on it, in a rather literal sense. Way too easy. Wouldn't be surprised if the rubbish reached half a million views even in that time. -2001:9E8:6AA5:4B00:A00:27FF:FE34:1184 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Robert Pape
Robert Pape, an expert in political violence at the University of Chicago, told The Guardian that the response of online commentators was indicative of Americans' growing acceptance of violence to settle civil disputes.
I don't think this is true, and the quote ignores the use of violence throughout American history, particularly in regards to the Gilded Age (which I think is already discussed). This is part of the American philosophy of the four boxes of liberty, which have been part of the culture of America since the beginning. Frederick Douglass: "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box." Douglass did not mention the soap box, as he appears to referring to the use of three boxes by Stephen Decatur Miller. America has always been a violent society, from the time of the colonial conquest and the subjugation of the indigenous people, to the time of the American Revolution and the war against the British, to the settlement of the American frontier during the Wild West, to the Civil War, to the running battles and skirmishes over workers rights, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, and the right to healthcare. There is literally no sense of a "growing acceptance of violence" occurring. This is something that Pape made up. All the crime statistics shows that violent crime is at the lowest levels in all of American history. Given the easy to prove, erroneous nature of Pape's opinion, I recommend either removing it or clarifying it with a relevant quote about the "four boxes", provided it is directly relevant to this topic from the source. Leaving Pape's opinion here without question is a form of misinformation. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately Robert Pape expressed an opinion to the guardian, an arguably incorrect opinion, but an opinion repeated by MSM never-the-less. Wikipedia is not construing this opinion as fact, just saying that he said it. I don't think its our place to insert our own opinions to the contrary unless these opinions have proper citations. Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish.22:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that there is a growing acceptance of violence to settle civil disputes in America is Pape's idea. He refers to it as "violent populism". His opinion should be rewritten to make it clear that this is his personal pet topic. If you look at what he has said about this topic on the past, he appears to classify the alleged shooter in the same category as the Tree of Life shooter, the El Paso shooter, the Buffalo shooting, the Pelosi attack, and the two Trump assassination attempts, as if they are all the same phenomenon. They are clearly not. More to my point, Pape speaks to actual numbers. He says 6% of Americans supported the use of force to restore Trump to the presidency while 8% supported the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president. None of this, I repeat once again, none of this compares to the political violence of the past. Violent crime has fallen by 50% in the last 30 years or so. While I'm not so fond of citing Steven Pinker due to some controversy, this is an area of research he has published widely about. When seen in this light, Pape's idea, particularly in regard to this incident, has no merit. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 StabroTalk•Contribs22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
In my view there's a bit too much content about the reaction of social media users. Regarding social media users specifically, I think it's sufficient to state in the article that (according to sources) many social media users shared their contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system. But does Wikipedia really need to state that "90,000 Facebook users responded with a "Haha" (or "laughing") reaction." In my view this level of content from social media users is not essential for an encyclopedic article as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reactions like those you have described are in bad taste, and I guess many of them come from people who had never heard of BT prior to his murder. But for me it's an important encyclopaedic detail to note that large numbers of people felt it was appropriate to express contempt for the victim and elation at his murder. It's an important, relevant and somewhat tragic illustration of the current zeitgeist that people are 'comfortable' to apparently celebrate a murder, despite the victim's apparent/alleged role in harming public health in one of the world's most developed/populous nations. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to do is to acknowledge that, yeah, among some quarters, that alleged suspect(Luigi Mangione) was regarded as folk hero, but we need not include all of that---Even John Dillinger was regarded as folk hero or Robin Hood of sorts back in 1934, but it doesn't change a bit he was still a bank robber and an outlaw anyway. Bf0325 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Robin Hood was much earlier than 1934. Nottingham and the surrounding woodland areas were already very urbanized by then and there's no way he could have carried out his brand of merry chauvinist guerrilla warfare in the largely undetected way that legend would have us believe. Although it was 1930s England and most folk were rejoicing in the peaceful inter-war period and perhaps too busy enjoying themselves to care about a well-meaning but deadly thug roaming among the trees dressed in green pantyhose. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. The section also has a wide variety of reliable sources, including articles that specifically talk about the apathetic/positive reaction to the killing, not just the killing in general. Cortador (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Time and again we see people mistake the views of internet mobs for widespread public sentiment, and time and again that isn't the case. I agree that some mention of this perverse phenomenon is due (and is covered in numerous RSes), but be careful with the language and avoid any phrasing that might imply these are mainstream views. Remember, it was a good citizen who tipped the police off. These mobs thought the suspect was being protected, and that wasn't the case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if someone thinks they are mainstream views because the sources support that view? There is an issue in qualifying or quantifying "mainstream", but significant news media like BBC are not being shy about reporting the "celebratory" content being posted on social media.
All that aside, it may be useful to realise that people/editors might/will/can substitute "I think that..." for "I think (because I've read sources that back up my thinking) that...".
For example, I think Thompson and his firm sound like rogues - that's my opinion based on reliable sources and data I've read. I'd expect people to jump on the word "opinion" - apparently we're not to have those. But once again, it's reasonable to stop and ask if I'm merely substituting the word "opinion" for "conclusion based on reliable sources".
Anyone following this story must surely have read analysis of the social media reactions - news outlets aren't merely quoting "Bob in Tennessee who posted a 'thumbs up' emoji in response to a post about Thompson's murder. They're discussing thousands of posts, some with hundreds of thousands of 'likes'". It is significant. And it's probably, as far as I can think of, the first time the murder of a civilian has prompted large scale "approval" on social media. It's ugly, it's understandable (which doesn't mean it's proper - it simply means it can be understood why it's happening without approving of it), and I guess it marks another grotty milestone in the evolution of social media.
In conclusion: it would be helpful I think if people avoid the kneejerk reaction of stonewalling reasoned discussion with interjections of "don't think' or "don't express an opinion" - because thoughts and opinions can simply be substitute words for "reasoned judgement" or "evidenced summation".
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. --ZimZalaBimtalk02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Snow closing as include. Based on the wide publication of the suspect's name in reliable sources in today's papers, this sample of wikipedians believes the name of the suspect should be included. Further discussion seems unlikely to change the outcome consensus. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
"claim" denial rates
Regarding the endlessly repeated bar chart showing UH's 32% "claim" denial rate -you might want to consider where those figures came from, and the fact that they're essentially guesstimates since information on private plans is kept confidential [1]. You might also want to take note of the difference between a "claim" (request for payment for a treatment already received) and a prior authorization request (pre-approval for a treatment not yet received)[2]. One suspects that the people trying to link UH's "claim" denials to denial of medical care aren't aware of this distinction.
I was also surprised to see mention of the suspect's "right wing" views. Whatever he's said against 'wokeism' or DEI, this is not the sort of ideology that inspires someone to execute a health insurance executive. Considering right wingers haven't spent the last 30 odd years railing against healthcare industries, I fail to see how these other views are related to this particular murder. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: Be very cautious of what you write and how you write it
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.
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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.
{{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 }}
Additional source provided below, which explicitly connects the name to the ID provided at the hostel, instead of being implied in the NBC source. The NBC source howver provides a photo of the fake ID, so both sources should be added to the modified statement.
{{cite news |url= https://www.eonline.com/ca/news/1410947/luigi-mangione-arrested-at-mcdonalds-how-police-found-person-of-interest-in-unitedhealthcare-ceo-death |title= Luigi Mangione Arrested at McDonald's: How Police Found Person of Interest in UnitedHealthcare CEO Death |author= Olivia Evans |date= 9 December 2024 |publisher= E! Online |work= E! News |via= E! Networks |id= 1410947 }}
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FWIW, I disagree completely with ZimZalaBim. Of course the timeline needs to provide the entire context of the events as opposed to just the minutes-long window of the killing itself. It speaks to what the victim was planning on doing that morning, and to the motive of the perpetrator, who was symbolically killing him before he could attend an important meeting where the goal of the meeting was to service investors. It strikes me as a little silly to say that the perpetrator getting coffee is a crucial detail critical to the shooting, but an update on the event the victim was heading to was not. The investor meeting is covered by reputable sources and mentioned as a significant event that occurred in the temporal proximity of the shooting. I think that this should be put back into the article until there is clear consensus for removal, and strongly oppose any unilateral effort to take it out. FlipandFlopped ツ18:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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. --ZimZalaBimtalk18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ZimZalaBim"Once Thompson was shot, those activities are no longer part of the timeline of directly related events" respectfully, I simply disagree with this. Immediate consequences of a shooting are relevant, and the cancellation of the event he was set to speak at is an immediate consequence. In other words, if someone is assassinated en route to something, the subsequent cancellation of that event immediately after the shooting is critical to understanding the timeline of events. If a famous singer was shot at 9:15pm en route to a concert that was set to start at 10:00pm, you don't think mentioning "9:55 pm, Concert is officially cancelled" is a relevant detail in that scenario? Analogous. FlipandFlopped ツ18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sources universally describe him as right-wing or anti-modern/capitalist reactionary. (Yes, they exist, and the Unabomber was widely considered to be one.)
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.
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 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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.
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.
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --ZimZalaBimtalk16:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Neutralitytalk18:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: please establish a consensus before taking any actions and doing so -
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. Skynxnex (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Done, I have bold added it. If it's challenged, then this discussion can be reopened. EF5 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Additional information needed Please provide sources for both of these claims 
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)
Done added source from CNN. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
