| Revision as of 00:52, 21 December 2024 editTrade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,126 edits →File:Luigi Mangione Mugshot.jpgTag: Manual revert← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:28, 28 December 2024 edit undoJonathan f1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,758 edits →Napolitan News poll: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| (43 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}} | {{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}} | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Consensus| |
{{Consensus|Editors have formed the following consensus: | ||
| * To ] in the article. | |||
| * To ] in the article. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Top 25 report|Dec 8 2024}} | {{Top 25 report|Dec 8 2024}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |maxarchivesize = 70K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | ||
| |algo = old( |
|algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Removal of the images of the charges indictment documents == | |||
| == Luigi Mangione article == | |||
| {{thread retitled|Draft on Luigi}} | |||
| {{atop|The Luigi Mangione article ] now, and the question of whether it will continue to exist is being decided at ].—] 12:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| I've made a draft on Luigi ] If you would like to contribute please do. ] (]) 22:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I am removing them from the article. They can be listed in External links. They can be summarized in the article. Not sure why they are being shown as images in the article itself. | |||
| :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. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with Darth Stabro. --] <sup style="color:black">]</sup> 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| By summarizing the documents, we ensures the article remains accessible to a wider audience. Also, we ensure the relevant information is integrated into the narrative. | |||
| :: People like Adam Lanza, Jesse Osborne, Anthony Dwayne McRae, etc., were not subjects of nation-wide manhunts. Mangione was. ] (]) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is no need to put the into the article as images. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. They allow the reader to directly read the indictment should they so choose. This provides our readers with the ability to directly access the documents that the section if referencing, and thus understand it in context. By doing so, the readers' understanding is expanded, and thus they add encyclopedic value. There is nothing preventing us from integrating the necessary detail into the article itself, Misplaced Pages is ] so there is no reasonable size concerns (as reading the original indictment document is entirely optional). I have reverted your change, pending the outcome of the ] cycle. ] 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, correct. Being the subject of a nation-wide manhunt ... for an infamous murder ... is, ummmmmm, irrelevant. Because ZimZalaBim on Misplaced Pages said so. LOL. So glad that I ignore that $2.75 Misplaced Pages donation appeal, when it pops up. ] (]) 03:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with @] as I do believe the indictment file presents the Government's view on the Killing of Brian Thompson and ensures Neutral Point of View. Plus since this article is about a criminal act (The two facts of Murder is a criminal act and the suspect currently indicted for the killing of Brian Thompson is innocent until proven guilty are not mutually exclusive) the legal indictment detailing the standing for the charges against the suspect is relevant and encyclopedic if that makes sense but I see where you're coming from @]! Sincerely, ] (]) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Misplaced Pages is based on consensus. If you don't like the consensus, you're welcome to make an account and join the discussion more fully. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 04:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Right now, I'm at a weak keep for the Luigi article. A burst of news coverage isn't enough, but if the news and other secondary sources keep covering the ongoing legal proceedings and other things about Luigi, that would clearly warrant a standalone article. ] (]) 11:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::To add, the donation appeal is for the Wikimedia Foundation. This article is under the English Misplaced Pages. Two related, but different groups. --] (]) 01:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that it's probably imprudent to rule out the possibility of him getting an article just yet. His trial is likely to yield more press coverage, which could add to the importance of his actions. His early life, political beliefs, alleged crime, manhunt, and upcoming trial seems enough to constitute an article. ] (]) 20:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::but did we not give Ryan routh an article even though barely anyone remembers him, as mangione was successful in his assassination, doesn't that make him noteworthy enough for a separate article? ] (]) 21:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::See ]. This was a discussion to delete the article you mentioned. The discussion was closed as ''No Consensus''. The main point of discussion appears to have been ] and the condition that appears to have mattered the most was the third condition: {{tpq|The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. ], for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the ], was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.}} It is not clear if the same condition is met or not for this individual. --] (]) 01:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::He should have an article. He's quickly becoming a known name in the public eye. However, I think we should wait a bit more until the trial begins and more information comes out. At that point, there will be too much information that we will need to have a separate article to avoid excessive clutter on this page. ] (]) 01:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::] ] (]) 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| Why is there not yet a biography page, and a link to his manifesto? ] (]) 12:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Fustbariclation}} I moved your comment from the top of the page to here as I think you are addressing the same thing as the users above. ] or ] may be of interest. I am not sure if the manifesto is released to the public ]]] 14:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == File:Luigi Mangione Mugshot.jpg == | |||
| :I'm a bit surprised that Luigi Mangione doesn't have his own article. ] has his own article and is only notable for one event (the Trump assassination attempt). Mangione is getting way more coverage in the media and reliable sources than Crooks ever will. ] (]) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is it too much that ENWP doesn't use images stolen from the internet in it's articles? Not sure why everyone seems so apathethic about this--] (]) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Cont. 1 (Luigi Mangione article) === | |||
| : Reread what you've written and ask yourself: will other editors be able to deduce what you're talking about? ] (]) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{thread retitled| Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione?}} | |||
| ::You mean pleading the community to stop uploading copyvio to Commons just for the sake of having a better photo of him? ] (]) 01:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is it time to create an article for Luigi Mangione? | |||
| :I think I'm understanding that you believe that this image should not be used because it's taken from the internet. This image is his mugshot. It was taken by the Pennsylvania local government and is available for public use, with or without explicit permission. ] (]) 07:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's been nominated for deletion for copyright reason. ] (]) 00:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is that for sourcing reasons or becuase of the actual mugshot itself? (PS. this is not supposed to be passive agressive and I don't know how to reword it I am simply curious) :) ] (]) 02:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Works of PA are subject to copyright restrictions. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 02:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Issue is with with Pennsylvania where the mugshot was taken. Can be uploaded here under fair use, but probably not in the Commons where they have stricter criteria. ] (]) 13:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ahhh that makes sense. Thank You! ] (]) 03:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Appareantly backing up the claim of public use up with any evidence isnt required either ] (]) 01:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == CloudResearch poll == | |||
| A page for ] was created on June 18, 2015, the day after the ] and his arrest. | |||
| ] (Arizona Family) reported on a CloudResearch poll. KTVK is reliable, but I don't know what to say of the poll. I can't seem to find the poll itself anywhere, and the article doesn't link to it. This is also the only source to report on it. The poll was conducted "Engage AI". I don't know if that could even be considered on here. ] (]) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| As of today, Misplaced Pages is not allowing the creation of a Luigi Mangione page, but is instead diverting to the ] page. ] (]) 17:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:we could attribute it. seems fair, if KTVK is talking about it. ] (]) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :: |
::Alright ] (]) 16:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::That doesn't work. KTVK, a reliable source, stated that this poll occurred in their own voice. Attributing a statement of fact from a reliable source is not needed. That's not different from any other statement of fact in our article sourced to a reliable secondary source—for them we also do not attribute. —] 11:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Correct ] (]) 19:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Engage is described on the CloudResearch official website: https://www.cloudresearch.com/products/engage/ – {{tqqi|Engage turns surveys into dynamic, engaging conversations by leveraging advanced generative AI.}} The people are real whereas the survey, instead of a questionnaire, is a chatbot conversation. —] 11:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you aware of ]? ] (]) 17:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024 == | |||
| ::] is not a convincing argument, and there is a tendency to leap in and create articles that have problems with ]. Personally I wouldn't support a separate article at the moment.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry for not being clear- I'm not arguing for a separate article, just pointing out the existence of the draft as a counter to the idea it is "not being allowed". ] (]) 17:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As I have replied ], the Dylann Roof article should not have been created at that time per ]. It is possible that a Luigi Mangione page could be created in the future but per the policy, this would be when the coverage is not contemporaneous and when there is an actual conviction. ] (]) 02:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{edit semi-protected|Killing of Brian Thompson|answered=yes}} | |||
| Thanks for all your answers. I don't have an opinion in the matter. I was more interested in the process. "Misplaced Pages is not allowing" makes it sound like something or someone above us made the decision, when in actuality, it was wikipedians who made the decision. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| change delay deny depose to deny defend depose ] (]) 12:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{notdone}}: There have been varying reports on the words found on the cartridges. Police clarified that "defend" was not one of the words after some confusion.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 12:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes - there is a group of wikipedia editors making the decision. I suppose that editors can contribute to/improve the Draft:Luigi Mangione article until it is deemed acceptable to publish. | |||
| :This article is needed - just as we have articles on Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, in order to tell the full story ] (]) 19:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There simply isn't enough information on Mangione yet to justify a separate article. Everything substantial in that draft is contained in this main article. | |||
| ::Adam Lanza, perpetrator of the ], doesn't even have his own article. Patrick Crusius of the ] doesn't have his own article. Especially given the delicacy of people perhaps *wanting* infamy, giving in to this and granting their own article in cases like this should be very delicately considered. He shouldn't be lionized, nor should there be any appearance of or opportunity for that. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 00:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's inherently difficult to compare Luigi Mangione to other "shooters" but I think your examples are apples to oranges here. Those examples are mass shooters that did not induce a national manhunt. The indiscriminate nature of their actions (and less complex motivations) places them into a different part of the American political zeitgeist. | |||
| :::They are most often brought up in regards to gun violence and public safety, a field where they unfortunately have several more notable peers that *do* have articles. | |||
| :::What Luigi did was more comparable to a targeted assassination of a powerful figure and is thus more similar to Lee Harvey Oswald, etc. ] (]) 00:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Would Brian Thompson be considered a “renowned national or international figure”? I had never heard of him nor is he a common household name. Even now I still have to google the name of the late ceo. ] (]) 00:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You bring up a good point. I was more making an assertion that whether or not Luigi receives an article should be considered under the standard of "assassin" rather than "mass shooter" (those labels are reductive, I know, but you get my point) / ] (]) 01:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think right now we are trying to follow ]. If an article is to be created due to the current article becoming too long, it would have to meet one of two criteria: if Thompson was renowned nationally/internationally or if “The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.” ] (]) 01:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No. Brian Thompson is not a "renowned national or international figure. " | |||
| :::::Thompson is notable only (if at all) for a single event (that is neither significant nor unusual) - this wouldn't even be an article under the policy's exclusion criteria (and is likely to be deleted in the not-so-distant future). | |||
| :::::] ] (]) 07:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Misinformation == | |||
| {{outdent}} | |||
| It think we need to make it clear, once and for all, that no one has any idea how often health insurers deny private claims, and that most data available comes from public plans, like Medicare Advantage, which in all likelihood inflate the denial rate. In the background section the article states: ''"UnitedHealthcare has been widely criticized for its handling of claims.''' The rate at which post-acute care claims were denied more than doubled between 2020 and 2022.'''"'' -but when you look at the source, it's clear they got this data from a government report about people on Medicare Advantage. Some context to consider when you edit this stuff is that overtreatment on public plans happens much more frequently, with some estimates indicating as much as 40% of medical treatment on public plans could be considered unnecessary. You are not going to find denial rates on private plans this high because a) overutilization is much less of an issue; and b) the people being covered are younger and more healthier than Medicare recipients. The line should be edited to reflect the actual source, like where they got that rate from. | |||
| It is a delusion to think that Mangione does not / will not merit an article. Talk about being a day late and a dollar short. Sheeeeesh. ] (]) 09:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I would also question how much of this background section is actually "background" pertaining to this particular case. Polling consistently shows that support for the killer is the strongest among age groups that have minimal contact with the healthcare sector, like the 18 -29 cohort. To imply that this social media phenomenon is being driven by people getting Medicare claims denied is just silly. The section also talks about people protesting Optum's ] business, but Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare -both owned by UnitedHealth Group, but separate subsidiaries. The killer had no personal connections to this company, and his own notebook states that he only decided to hit insurance back in August of this year (I presume this means he was contemplating other industries). I suspect that as these trials proceed and prosecutors give jurors a reality check, reliable sources will more accurately reflect the context of this case. ] (]) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :If we ''"talk about a day late and a dollar short"'' most likely the subject '''lacks merit''' for an article. | |||
| :Turns out '''"it is a delusion to think''"''''' Misplaced Pages is a newspaper. | |||
| :review relevant policies: | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :] | |||
| :"''a day late and a dollar short''" = belongs on ] site instead of wikipedia ] (]) 20:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :this is ]ing to rant about medicare overtreatment and that youth support of luigi mangione is driving social media. please include an actionable, specific edit request. ] (]) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Cont. 2 (Luigi Mangione article) === | |||
| ::It isn't "FORUMing" -it's assuming good faith and providing you with context, rather than accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting a source. Read the quoted statement ("The rate at which post-acute care claims were denied more than doubled between 2020 and 2022") and read what the source says (this was pertaining to people on Medicare Advantage, which represents a small fraction of United's business). | |||
| {{thread retitled|]}} | |||
| ::You must be new on this article because most of these issues had been discussed ad nauseum on the archived talk page. That support for Mangione is mainly youth demos (so, not Medicare recipients) is just obvious from the polling -check polling by Emerson, Rasmussen, The Economist, YouGov etc. Familiarize yourself with this case so other editors don't have to write book chapters in talk. ] (]) 18:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I've already posted this once, but I'm going to post it again because I need help in making the article. ] ] (]) 19:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Jonathan f1}} Be civil. Anyone can edit. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fine, but the line in bold should be corrected to reflect the source. The denial rate cited in the article, which makes it seem like it's for all plans or private plans, is strictly for Medicare Advantage. ] (]) 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Revert == | |||
| :Skimmed the early life section and there are many grammar errors. Should be *part of a notable family in Maryland, owned many *businesses, also *bought another country club (and you missed a period after this line). Maybe give this another proofread. ] (]) 19:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::and "Firaxis" spelling, "Civilization IV" shouldn't be in quotes, etc. | |||
| ::I will again state my opposition to the creation of such an article, as well. He is only notable for this. He has not gained independent notoriety. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 19:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's another thing I was going to mention =if he's even notable for his own article. I think we should wait until the smoke clears. If he fades away when people lose interest in this case, then it's the case that's notable, not him. ] (]) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Also tagging @]. Please read the guideline ]. I know you gave the example of ] being an article that was created the next day after the Charleston church shooting (the timing of that article was created against guideline). There is also Daniel Penny, who does not currently have a Misplaced Pages BLP, from ], as well as countless other LPs who have been convicted of crime. ] (]) 20:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We also have ], which is an enforceable policy. ] (]) 20:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::BLPCRIME has nothing to do with the draft article. —] • ] • ] 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :"He lived in Honolulu until the killing" is not assuming innocence. | |||
| :"While on his Twitter (X) account he had an X-ray picture of a spine. Which was posted during 2016" is not good grammar. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 19:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Brian Thompson was murdered; Luigi Mangione is the suspect. There's simply no need for editors to create a separate Mangione-the-folk-hero article, so long as a WP search for "Luigi Mangione" automatically redirects to this article. While the life and life problems of the suspect should be discussed, they seem quite appropriate as part of a section in this article. ] (]) 21:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yup, exactly. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 21:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why does Thomas Matthew crooks have a page but not Luigi. ] (]) 01:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thomas Matthew Crooks is not a living person. ] (]) 01:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Wiki-'''Notable''' - yeah, the title (article) "Luigi Mangione", is notable.--Just write the article without going thru the ' '''formal''' Draft process', and then click "Publish"/Save. (Showing your cards early, can only hurt "your" article's case.)--There is a fair chance that ''wiki-lawyering'' will get the first version of the article, Deleted (no matter how well, one actually makes the article).--What makes him stand out, among murder suspects? The '''entire body''' of commentary done by notable anchormen/-women, journalists, other commentators and politicians? Yeah, that is likely a big part of his notability. But also research being done, which has a strong relationship to him (or his actions).--Timing: if you can, then publish "your" article when there is a new development in the case, or new and significant info about the suspect or info about the alleged preparations for the crime.--If some of this post is helpful to you, then fine. ] (]) 22:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also, if another wikipedia gets an article that looks like its going to get kept - that ''might'' also be an okay time to consider publishing. ] (]) 22:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 | |||
| :::The ''timing'' is also actually covered in the guidelines and policy, if you want to read that again. In regards to enforceable policy it goes beyond ]. See ]. BLPs are ] per arbitration enforcement committee. With contentious topics, you must “comply with all applicable ]”. ] (]) 22:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's way too early to assess his notability as an individual. He's being covered in relation to this case right now, no more or less. | |||
| :::Want another example? Scott Peterson doesn't have his own Wiki page, he's only mentioned on the killing of Laci Peterson article, because that's why he's known (he was previously a fertilizer salesman). And that case was arguably more of a national sensation than this one, and even distracted attention from the war in Iraq. Same thing happened there -wall to wall coverage of Scott Peterson, his affair, his whereabouts, his family. And yet, as time went on, it became increasingly clear that all that attention was generated from that case and only that case. ] (]) 22:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It might be better to hold off on creating a separate Luigi Mangione article for now. A separate article would basically be a repeat of the whole 'Suspect' section (and other content) from this article, plus random trivia (e.g. the video games he played). ] (]) 00:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'All the time', it so happens that people say "don't create the article now", and after a Deletion-discussion, an article gets kept.--'''Go ahead''', and publish article, and make "your" case in the article.--He is still front page news in my country. Today's headline, linked from front page: 'Luigi (26) is getting massive amounts of support -<br>Competitions, monetary support and protests - the U.S. is supporting the alleged killer'<br>Link, https://www.vg.no/nyheter/i/93GvyW/luigi-mangione-26-faar-massiv-stoette-paa-sosiale-medier<br><br>Scott Peterson in comparison? Nah. The wiki-notability of ], might be a closer comparison. ] (]) 08:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 /] (]) 08:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see how a serial killer in Asia is more analogous than another murder case that generated widespread public interest within the US and interest in the suspect's personal life. Are you trolling? ] (]) 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Foreigners hardly give a flip (or remember or even have read or heard) about the crime life of Scott Peterson.--Mangione is a different story. I can spoonfeed you, after someone publishes an article about Mangione, and the spoonfeeding will be done in the AfD/RfD.--Now, if user:Jonathan f1, can bring the insults, down a notch, then that will be fine.--Discussing an article that has not even been published, seems like somewhat like giving a critique (now) about Eminem's July 4 concert for next year. ] (]) 22:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:3521:5326:133:7329 | |||
| :::The Misplaced Pages article is currently ] to prevent disruption (for example, IPs who may not be as familiar with the policies). Editors can edit the draft Luigi article (recently it was expanded and improved by a more experienced editor). | |||
| :::The ] very strongly warn us about presumption of innocence for biographies of living persons accused of crimes and when articles should be created for those persons. | |||
| :::“* Note: A ] is presumed '''not guilty''' unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to ''not'' creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.“ ] (]) 22:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Be '''bold'''. Write about the investigation. Write about stuff that the 'other two articles' are not covering as well. Follow the money.--(If anyone wants to waste their time, then a formal Draft, is a good idea.) What is not a waste of time, is to publish something - so that '''everyone''' has a chance to "vote" with arguments, for its support, or arguments to shoot it down. ] (]) 03:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 | |||
| :Another thing: There is not much point, in doing a major rewrite, of an article ''after'' it has been published. (At least not about this topic.)--If the first version gets shot down, so be it.--A new version can be made, and the major rewrite can be a part of that.--Will many voice their opposition to my arguments? Of course (as is their right, to come with opposing views). ] (]) 04:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:319:C51C:F06E:7D2A:883A:D7F6 | |||
| === Cont. 3 (Luigi Mangione article) === | |||
| {{thread retitled|Wrongful Delete of Mangione (article), December 16}} | |||
| Wrongful 'delete or merge or whatever', today. | |||
| <br> | |||
| en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Luigi_Mangione&diff=1263448163&oldid=1263446879 | |||
| <br> | |||
| The justification was dated 10 December; that 'verdict' is only for the version on that day (or copies of that version). ] (]) 19:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What? I have no idea what you're saying; the redirect was justified. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 19:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've gone ahead and restored it. If someone thinks the subject doesn't merit an article, they're more than welcome to demonstrate consensus for that at ]. —] • ] • ] 20:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See: ]. ] (]) 01:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::At some point a separate article will be justified as more information comes and his section should be spun out. But I disagree that this article should not have major emphases on the suspect and victim. Crime writing always gives complete descriptions of both. ] (]) 08:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| ==Luigi Mangione's booking photo== | |||
| ABC put up Mangione's mugshot a few hours ago. Is it too early to upload it or not? | |||
| * {{cite news|url=https://abcnews.go.com/US/luigi-mangione-charged-murder/story?id=116623608|title=UnitedHealthcare CEO killing: Luigi Mangione faces murder charge as new details emerge|author=Aaron Katersky|publisher=ABC News}} | |||
| ==Polls: Americans have overwhelmingly negative views of the killing== | |||
| Scientific opinion polls much of the support for the alleged killer is an online phenomenon not reflected among the general American public. The lead still incorrectly gives off the impression that it's a wide majority of Americans who support him. Could this be revised? ] (]) 16:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For reference, the two polls that are being discussed are: and . ] (]) 01:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : The "Center for Strategic Politics" does not pass the smell test. Looking at an archive.org , it appears that as of two days ago this organization's website was still being thrown together, displaying placeholder text in various places. In other words, they seemingly put their website together a day ''after'' they supposedly conducted this poll. ] (]) 17:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not a reliable polling source, per Eisenhof. Stop POV pushing, you’ve been doing it for days. ] (]) 17:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The original Twitter link was taken Not the Center of Strategic Politics. (I have no strong opinion on whether they should be listed or not.) It's clear however that a majority of Americans do not support the killing as the lead implies. That's not "POV-pushing". The ooening paragraph in the introduction wrongly gives the impression that social media comments are the same as scientific research polling. We should of course place priority on actual, scientific polling. ] (]) 17:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, that's not an RS for polling, but it's hardly a surprising result. Here's a Miami Herald poll similarly showing that a majority of Americans view Mangione negatively. | |||
| ::This data is more nuanced, and shows a generational divide: more Americans under 45 view Mangione more favorably than Americans over 45. But even among the under 45 cohort, a plurality of responders said they "don't know" what their opinion of him is. As I said the other day, it's Christmas season and many, if not most, are probably not following this case closely. This is certainly what you'd expect of a truly random sample this time of year, verses biased social media reactions. ] (]) 17:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Miami Herald is quoting the same survey by the Center for Strategic Politics, so I'm not sure that it's actually more reliable. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 17:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::But isn't Herald reliable and would that not lend credence to the polls? Not sure about policy here. ] (]) 17:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, it does lend credibility to the poll. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 00:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::could we just quote the poll with attribution, until more polls come out? Especially if a reliable source is reporting on it? unless we can prove the center is unreliable, we can just use the miami herald source to talk about it. ] (]) 00:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yep, seems good <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 05:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I think it's worth paying closer attention to the polling source. We're learning that this poll is the only poll this outfit has conducted. It registered its website on 12/12/24. Its social media accounts are new. And its purported Director is listed on LinkedIn as actually being a Flexpoint Payments Solutions Support Specialist (same photo on both sites) and does not mention Center for Strategic Politics, even though he's the head. Only the National Review, the Herald, and the Independent have published this poll independently. I think the fact that other mainstream print outlets have held back on this poll is compelling. ] (]) 05:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::The Herald and the Independent are pretty reliable, to be clear, and says it's been cited by NY Post and The Gazette as well. I would also like to note that has cited the poll, giving even more credence. But the methodology and "cross tabs" are there. Just because it's new doesn't mean it can't be reliable. ] (]) 13:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And already we have moved from talking about opinions on the killing to opinions on the killer, which are two different things. ] (]) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Surprise, surprise. That's exactly what I said a couple days ago and cautioned editors not to use language that implicates the wider public. ] (]) 17:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::A person to the introductionary paragraph (which basically says everyone supported the killing) as "POV-pushing". This is despite the reality that multiple ''other'' scientific opinion polls have also ! The article as written is clearly intended to influence reader's perceptions and make them support the alleged killer. I'm not sure why we're placing emphasis on social media posts over actual, scientific polling. Even without the Strategic Center for Politics poll - which has been quoted in major newspapers for the time being, it's very possible that they're just a first time poster - it doesn't change the reality that a vast majority of Americans do not support the killing. (Even if they have complicated, differing, and generally negative opinions of the present American healthcare system.) ] (]) 17:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Dude, that's not an RS. Just use the Miami Herald poll I linked above and make sure you accurately reflect the results. ] (]) 17:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: That's not a Miami Herald poll. That's the Miami Herald breathlessly reporting the same "Center for Strategic Politics" poll that was objected to above. ] (]) 17:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It was objected to because it came from an unreliable source, but once that data is referenced by a secondary RS, that's no longer the case. Or at least that's how it usually works in my experience. ] (]) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: It does not work that way. Per ], {{tq|Whether a ''specific'' news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis.}} Also probably relevant is the policy on articles that just reprint material assembled by somebody else: {{tq|Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are ] and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release.}} There is no indication in the ''Herald'' article that the author did anything except regurgitate the poll results, and the article is therefore no more reliable than the polling agency. ] (]) 17:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::The Napolitan Institute has a grand total of ten YouTube subscribers. Also hardly a reliable source on the topic. I'm with you in that we need to make sure not to lionize these actions but we need real, reliable sources for it. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 17:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The polling is by ], a right-wing albeit widely used pollster in polling aggregates. (Nate Silver's models, DecisionDeskHQ, CNN, and others all use him; the notable exception is that .) I don't see the problem with sourcing it with attribution. His polls are widely used on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Look, you're not going to get that source in here, but the Miami Herald used the dame source, so let's stick to that. One editor said the Herald "breathlessly reported" this data, but we're not supposed to be making those assessments about RSes. If the source is generally reliable, assume good faith (that they investigated the original source, the methodology checked out and was worthy of publication). ] (]) 17:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Just to repeat what I said above, our policies on reliable sources do, in fact, instruct us to determine whether a source simply repeats material from some other underlying source, and if, so, to assess the reliability according to the underlying source (]). That is exactly what is going on here. ] (]) 17:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Okay, so the assumption pertaining to this totally predictable polling outcome is that a mainstream media source that's got multiple levels of corporate oversight and editorial review just "breathlessly reported" a poll like Joe Schmuck on X would. Got it. ] (]) 17:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::To follow up on this -none of those policies you linked say anything about generally reliable news sources reporting polls. Which one are you specifically referring to? ] (]) 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: As far as I am aware, those policies are generally applicable and are not suspended just because the material regurgitated by the news source happens to be a poll as opposed to some other kind of organizational press release. ] (]) 18:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::But it's your opinion that they just "regurgitated it" and did not do any fact-checking. When a news source has a reputation for editorial oversight, we do not normally assume they just "regurgitate" whatever they read on the internet, like your average social media user. ] (]) 18:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yet social media comments (a non-representative sample if there ever was one) are supposed to dictate the article implying or directly claiming that a majority of Americans support the killing. Right now... jt evens claim that the social media comments are the mainstream perspective. I hate to come off as rude... but it comes across as editors manipulating and finding loopholes in the rules to push a viewpoint as the overwhelmingly dominant interpretation that is clearly a minority in real life. | |||
| ::::::::It is true that scientific opinion polling and common sense (if we're going to have a "smell test" criteria that's vague and individual to the reader) shows that Americans have gripes with the U.S. healthcare system. They also show that a vast majority also disapprove of random, targetted killings. | |||
| ::::::::The alleged manifesto from the alleged killer is one page, incoherent, and simply repeats common and vague gripes (many cited to smart people no doubt) about the nation's healthcare system. It also included violent threats and a "I'm too lazy to write a coherent manifesto" ending - (Unlike '']''... which be was supposedly inspired by. Which, for all its faults, is truly a coherent and detailed manifesto.) - so the claims in the article that the alleged killer was a unique genius who understood the American healthcare system seems doubtful at best. Most killers, even those with political motivations, are unsurprisingly ineffective at getting sympathy and would have been violent anyway. The alleged killer's social media also backs that up. He previously blamed institutions rather than particular individual's for societial problems. | |||
| ::::::::Unfortunately with how Misplaced Pages works: a dedicated minority can override that of an exhausted or indifferent majority... which is how I suspect how this page got significant POV issues. | |||
| ::::::::Unfortunately I have a feeling that no amount of scientific opinion polling, contradicting evidence, or anything else is going to change the minds of certain editors, so I don't see this page improving for awhile. | |||
| ::::::::It needs significantly changed. I've offered suggestions but they're all getting rejected. ] (]) 18:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's another NY Times poll indicating that "most Americans say they have good health insurance," Also says that recent social media rage doesn't tell the whole story. ] (]) 17:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The final introductionary sentence should read: | |||
| ::::<blockquote>According to a Scott Rasmussen/RMG Research opinion poll published by Napolitan News Service on December 13, a predominant majority of Americans opposed the killing, believe that Mangione is guilty, and would vote for his conviction if they were a juror. The killing also led to revived criticism of the American healthcare systemand a notable social media campaign online that reacted to the killing with contempt and mockery towards Thompson and UnitedHealth Group, and with sympathy and praise for the assailant. Threats against business leaders by others referencing the killing also occurred. Inquiries about protective services and security for CEOs and corporate executives surged.</blockquote> | |||
| ::::I'm not sure how this is pushing a point of view. I'm still confused on why we're taking social media comments as a general reflection of the population. We should be priorizing actual, scientific opinion polls over any social media comments. If the latter was accurate: Bernie Sanders would be President after Ron Paul completed his second term. Additionally, the last paragraph was based on the debunked chart (talked about above) that wrongly showed that UnitedHealthcare uniquely denied individual's treatments. at higher rates than comparative insurers. If anything, the article as written is a POV-mess that is clearly edited in a way intended to influence reader's perception of the event. | |||
| ::::One labeled the alleged killer's family "working class" despite the fact that his was richer than the healthcare CEO's! ] (]) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That would be giving ] weight to one polling in the lead, and the lead should be summarizing the body of the article. Please heed the advice on your talk page: ]. ] (]) 17:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::That's circular reasoning. Both the lead and body obviously need to be revised. ] (]) 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I posed this question to the RS noticeboard]. ] (]) 18:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thanks. I've also noticed circular reasoning from many of the arguments here. Claiming that the (biased) paragraphs in the body of the article means that the last introductionary paragraph can't be revised to be more neutral or that the body itself can't be revised to be more neutral. (It's very easy to find denouncements of the killing and the alleged killer as well.) This is crushing to my sanity. ] (]) 18:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Might be best just to start an RfC if you're struggling to gain consensus. Regardless of whether these arguments are circular or any good is somewhat irrelevant right now as there is distinct opposition to this content being added to the article, which is unlikely to change without broader input. ] (]) 18:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't know what to tell you -it's remarkable to me that in 2024 people still think every social media eruption is a glimpse into the wider public, with no actual evidence indicating as much. The lead still says '''''"Many Americans''' reacted online to the killing with contempt and mockery towards Thompson,"'' as if a mob on social media equates to "many Americans." If we go by the mob, then no one in the public would turn Mangione in (they did), no grand jury will indict him (they will), because Americans are all being brutally oppressed by their health insurance companies, when in fact this NY Times poll says most Americans rate their healthcare "good," and cautions against placing too much stock in social media rage. | |||
| :::::::::Oh well don't sweat it -this article will probably improve over time as more info comes out and more people work on it. ] (]) 18:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The polls are soft sources, and there are better sources such as in the article.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 18:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::So, a scientific poll is a 'soft source', but that BBC piece, baaed almost entirely on social media reactions, unverified claims, and commentary from street activists is apparently an unmovable object. It isn't even on topic -the issue is not if many Americans have healthcare grievances (they do), but if they support the murderer of a CEO or any violence against executives. Doesn't even address this very specific issue with any data. | |||
| :::::::::::Your link also cites data consistent with the NY Times poll and other polls: '''''"Most insured adults, 81%''', '''still rated their health insurance as "excellent" or "good"."''''' This, too, flies in the face of what we're hearing on social media. ] (]) 19:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::BBC is top draw RS. OR will get you nowhere here. ] (]) 19:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::OR? The issue here is whether "many Americans" support the CEO killer, not the social media reactions to the killing or who has healthcare grievances. The BBC piece linked above contains no actual data about support for the killer, but does say a large majority of insured Americans are satisfied with their coverage. That isn't OR -I quoted the same source you're holding up as the gold standard. ] (]) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::{{tq|"Your link also cites data consistent with the NY Times poll and other polls"}} reads as OR to me, and thus wouldn't be fit for inclusion. ] (]) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| NY Times poll: "Most Americans say they have good health insurance.". BBC:"Most insured adults, 81%, still rated their health insurance as "excellent" or "good.". | |||
| :So, not OR. ] (]) 19:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::That content, and those sources, has nothing to do with the source you are talking about nor the content you want to include. ] (]) 19:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Someone else wanted to include a poll that's been referenced by the Miami Herald, and I don't see a problem with it, but others do, and I can see why (it's just one poll at this point, and was not conducted by the Herald, even though it seems legit to me). If the BBC piece is irrelevant to the topic under discussion, then tell it to the editor who cited that piece in response to this topic. Because I already told him that. | |||
| :::The topic is, "''Despite online perceptions, most Americans don't support the CEO killer.''" This is the issue that needs to be addressed if/when more polling is published. ] (]) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Per the poll you want to include {{tq|"61% of respondents said they have a strong or somewhat negative perception of Mangione,"}}, making that quote accurate and not an issue. ] (]) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What isn't an issue? The main takeaway from that poll cited by OP is that most Americans have negative views of the killer, which is inconsistent with social media reactions. Opinions of US healthcare are also more complicated than these social media users portray it, but that's a separate issue. ] (]) 20:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Apologies returned my comment given the reply. I thought what you quoted was already in the article, but instead this is the content you wish to include? Genuinely confused. But overall, I think just wait for further analysis from reliable sources. ] (]) 20:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Someone else wanted to include it, I didn't see a problem with that, but you've persuaded me to wait and see if other sources back it up. So, unless someone else wants to jump in here, I don't have anything more to add. ] (]) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]. ] (]) 20:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So they say.. ] (]) 20:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I also have concerns about some of the wording in the lead. Currently the lead section states that many Americans reacted online with sympathy and praise for the assailant and many social media users characterized the killing as deserved or justified. If these people reacted online by praising the assailant then it's fairly obvious they would also believe, in their opinion, that the killing was deserved or justified. I think the wording in relation to social media users could be more concise and less wordy in the lead. | |||
| :It's also stated in the lead that '''some''' Americans condemned the killing, but in the first sentence of the paragraph it states that "Many Americans reacted online to the killing with contempt and mockery." The lead gives an impression that more Americans are supportive of the killing and mock a fatal shooting than the ''some'' who condemned it. The silent majority, who don't use social media to post venom and praise the actions of a killer, are not being fairly represented in my view. So if there's an opinion poll from a reliable source which indicates that the majority of Americans disapprove of the killing rather than having praise for the assailant, I'd support the inclusion of such a poll in the lead to give some balance to the view of the angry social media mob. Regards, ] (]) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since a few editors here have concerns with the phrase "Many Americans", I've attempted to reword it . ] (]) 01:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks and agree with those changes. Until we have actual evidence, it's best not to implicate the wider public. ] (]) 15:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The poll shouldn't go in the lead, as it is not being very widely cited, and putting it there would be giving it undue weight. There are all kinds of problems with single issue polls like this, not least, there is a very obvious "correct" answer to "do you support murder?". It's really quite astounding that even 18% said "yes, I do support this (alleged) murderer."] (]) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What I like about the poll is that it gives measurable numbers. There were 455 who took the poll, and the polling was not just about the suspect but also about opinions on the health insurance industry and views on Thompson. 61% did not have a favorable view on Mangione, and many people also did not have favorable views on the industry. ] (]) 18:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, I would say that 455 is a VERY small sample if we are attempting to judge the opinion of a country of 300 million plus, especially given it claims to control for region, race and political opinion. And the methodology is not very clear on the site, I'd like to know a lot more about their participant selection and this app they use. No margin of error is present, which is a massive red flag. | |||
| ::The Napolitan news survey is a little better, but again it has flaws. It is a survey of registered voters rather than citizens, and it is opaque about its weightings. It gives a margin of error of over 3%, which is massive, and again claims to control for geography, ethnicity and voting history (again, 40% of people don't vote). Once again, the key figure here is that only 50-56% of people consider an alleged terrorist murderer, to be a villain. | |||
| ::The fact these sources give data, doesn't make the data valid or invalidate sources which don't. Giving too much prominence to these sources, especially the headline "only 10% support" will give a false picture of public reaction. | |||
| ::] (]) 19:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::50-56% is not that far off from 61%. From these numbers, I would not say “Americans have overwhelmingly negative views”, but I would agree that views are “polarized”, which I have also mentioned in on this talk page and is the wording I have seen used by sources. ] (]) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"overwhelmingly negative" is opinion, and would need to be attributed and balanced. 50-56% negative is not overwhelmingly negative, it is half negative. Just give the percentages.] (]) 20:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yeah, but a good chunk of people had no opinion whatsoever, so 50% does not imply the other half supports the killer. As mentioned several times, it's Christmas season and lots of people are busy, others simply do not care about this story. Either way you slice it, these polls show minority support for the killer, quite the opposite of the social media reactions. ] (]) 00:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Another poll, this time from , is out - 68% find the murder unacceptable, 18% find it acceptable. Support is highest among Democrats (22%) and 18-29 (41%). | |||
| Pretty clear polling picture emerging that the vast majority of people find this unacceptable. '''] ]''' 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Polling wise, Emerson as a source is about as reliable as you can get. ] (]) 16:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm appalled that 41% of those aged 18–29 think it's acceptable to kill a man in the street and leave his wife and two children devastated. Irrespective of the occupation of the victim and irrespective of one's views of the American health insurance system, the contempt and lack of any consideration for the victim's bereaved family from the 41% is appalling. But the important issue, rather than my own views, is the majority of people as surveyed in the poll from the reliable source of Emerson found the killing unacceptable. The lead section previously gave a misleading impression based on the views of an angry social media mob that the violent killing was supported by most Americans. The views of the silent majority who don't post venom on social media were previously not taken into full consideration in the article. Regards, ] (]) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unfortunately, {{u|Cortador}} appears to have gone ahead and removed it, which leaves the lead skewing improperly towards conclusions that contradict highly reliable opinion polls. I'm going to add a tag to the article as a result - it's clearly not representing the full picture. '''] ]''' 21:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The tag you added is for the article, not the lead paragraph. ] (]) 21:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ya'll can forget about the tag. Edit and discuss. This article is edited by hundreds and read by hundreds of thousands. It doesn't need a ''maintenance tag'' to attract the attention of editors and get help in resolving a perceived issue. If the issue is not getting resolved, spare some time to formulate an actionable solution and use ] as needed. —] 23:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] Kindly see the above comment. —] 23:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As far as I'm aware, there's no "article is viewed by lots of people" exception to tagging. The purpose of the tag is to direct people to the discussion. Removing it does not help anyone. '''] ]''' 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But where is it ?? ] (]) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::It’s linking to this discussion. You could find this out by clicking on the tag. '''] ]''' 00:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm shocked by this reply. —] 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)| | |||
| ::::::::I'm not sure what you're shocked by. I'm more shocked by you deleting half of the polling section. '''] ]''' 00:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Do you dispute ] with the edit summary of {{tqq|rm editorialization based on a synthesized subjective combined reading of the Center for Strategic Politics disputed on the talk page and the Emerson poll that is individually discussed below}}? "Talk page" refers to this very talk thread right here. Look for "Center for Strategic Politics". The Emerson poll is already accounted for individually in the article. —] 00:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's no more synthethesis than combining a bunch of random articles about social media posts to create the (seemingly inaccurate) picture that the public views the murder/the alleged murderer favorably. '''] ]''' 00:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::Okay, edit out or change what you disagree with or propose a particular rewritten version. Again, it can't possibly be that you think that this is the correct way to address your perceived issue—top tagging an article with this active of a talk page—instead of substantively discussing with editors who oppose your edit or using any method of dispute resolution that moves things forward. —] 00:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::This is here to further that discussion. The user who reverted in question has not responded, but others are welcome to discuss how to make this article comply with Misplaced Pages policies. '''] ]''' 00:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::You said {{tqq|Unfortunately, Cortador appears to have gone ahead and removed }} and immediately added the tag while Cortador was still evidently in an editing session as seen from their reply how the tag was unneeded. You never legitimately tried to sort it out with Cortador on the merits. Please remove the tag, it's ridiculous. —] 01:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::I will not be removing the tag, as it is abundantly clear there's a major content dispute over the neutrality of this article. '''] ]''' 01:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Preposterous remark seeing how you added the top tag based on a ''single sentence in the lead section'' (]) instead of earnestly trying to attempt to resolve the issue. You could have pinged Cortador to workshop a middle-ground version instead of pinging him only to point out your addition of the tag and not even addressing him directly. Later, you came up with complaints about existing content that are completely outlandish, as they are based on your view that editors are ascribing value to social media content. —] 01:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::I'm not sure why you're getting so heated over a tag multiple other editors agree is appropriate. Again - are you aware of how tags work? '''] ]''' 01:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::You can address me a thousand times with the copypasted text "Again - are you not familiar with how tags work", it won't erase the fact that you've top tagged this incredibly high-traffic article with a lively talk page on which various views have coexisted for weeks now to make this article what it is, because a single sentence you've added to the lead was removed. —] 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] Where is the dedicated discussion for ? Per ], it can simply be removed if a drive by tag. It's looking like it's due to be removed based on points 2 & 3 at present. ] (]) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::<s>It’s linking to this discussion. You could find this out by clicking on the tag. '''] ]''' 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</s> (this was meant to be a response above) | |||
| ::::::How is the tag supposed to help resolve the content dispute? —] 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::By encouraging people to go to the talk page and discuss it. Have you never seen a tag before? '''] ]''' 00:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As many other editors have pointed out: This is absolutely ridiculous. Could you revert the introduction back? Not sure why two editors here want to discount scientific opinion polling, notable political figures, and everything else. Both of these people have claimed that it is just "one" poll... and now that three new ones have found the exact thing... they're just claiming it's "455 people" and thus not reliable. (Which totally misunderstands how polling works.) ] (]) 00:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::''People''? You can't be serious. There are so many editors editing this article minute by minute and engaging in discussions on this talk page non-stop. Don't you think you just need to, you know, offer the solution to the dispute? Discuss the issue with your reverter maybe, see what others say on the substance? Seen ] before? —] 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::That's what the tag is for. Again - are you not familiar with how tags work? '''] ]''' 00:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::It's not clear to readers what the dispute is. First, they have to read through walls of text. Is the dispute whether one poll should be mentioned but not the other? If so, is it about reliability? | |||
| ::::::::::While I appreciate most people condemn the homicide, the approval rating is extraordinary, whichever poll you use. | |||
| ::::::::::You should set up a new section briefly and without stating your opinion what the dispute is and edit the link on the template to direct to it. Certainly that's not asking too much ] (]) 07:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Why should it not be tagged? This is how tags work. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 00:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Because the tag is about the article being skewed towards a certain viewpoint. Nobody has made a case for what viewpoint that is. "I want this sentence in the lead paragraph" (which is the supposed issue) is not even about missing and/or overrepresented viewpoints in the article. ] (]) 12:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The tag is broadly about the issues this article has in inflating the prominence of support for the killer despite polling showing the opposite. '''] ]''' 13:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::It doesn't inflate it. It states that reactions on social media towards the killing were frequently apathetic to positive, which is backed up by a plethora of sources. At no point does the article state that this is representative for the general population - that is a strawman. ] (]) 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::The polling has been added to the lead. The polls have not been removed from the body including the Rasmussen poll. Which changes do you want to make but perhaps believe you shouldn't do boldly? It doesn't appear like anyone is standing in the way of your editing. —] 14:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Napolitan News Service=== | |||
| What is the consensus on the following poll? ''"The Napolitan News Service surveys of 1,000 Registered Voters was conducted online by Scott Rasmussen December 12, 2024. Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc. and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1."'' -- is reliable or usable for this article? ] (]) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Scott Rasmussen is a very credible pollster. He's not to be confused with Rasmussen Reports, which is not. '''] ]''' 01:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would never directly quote a poll, but would use a secondary source that reported it. Partly that's because secondary sources are required to establish weight for inclusion and also because they provide analysis. Do we say the overwhelming majority of people condemned the killing or do we say as many as 31% of young respondents viewed the suspect favorably? | |||
| ::Mainstream journalists have questioned Rasmussen's objectivity and methodology. While that does not mean we cannot include sources that quote them, it's a good reason not to use them directy. ] (]) 07:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you talking about Rasmussen, or Rasmussen Reports? Scott Rasmussen left Rasmussen Reports in 2013, after which it spiraled into insanity. RMG Research, in comparison, is a pretty respected pollster - it's ranked , or the first quartile. '''] ]''' 13:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Suspect section of the article == | |||
| The Suspect section of the article is going into too much detail about the suspect's life. Remember, this is an article about a killing, not an article about the suspect. Just because the media reports something does not mean we need to include it in this article. We have no responsibility to mimic what the news media is doing. | |||
| Here are some things of great concern about this section: | |||
| * The detailed personal and educational achievements (valedictorian, Ivy League degrees, etc.) are unnecessary and irrelevant until they have direct bearing on the case. | |||
| * His family's prominence (real estate, philanthropy) introduce bias and do not yet directly relate to the case. | |||
| * The inclusion of the suspect being reported missing by his mother and stopping social media activity in the summer of 2024 could be construed as implying guilt or suspicious behavior. Without direct relevance to the case, this can appear as leading the reader. | |||
| * Mentioning his last known residence and detailed career timeline could be seen as invasive. It is not yet relevant to the case. | |||
| * The involvement of his mother and her contact with the police also raises privacy concerns. Again, this is not yet relevant to the case. | |||
| I invite all of you to please think about this and provide your opinions on the matter. Thanks, <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 04:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe Mangione should have his own page at this point. He is rather famous now. ] (]) 13:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that with this level of information given, it suggests we should instead establish a separate page for Mangione, and trim down the suspect section in this article to only the details directly relevant to the killing. The section here is longer than that of quite a few local-level US politicians. ] (]) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am not sure how concerned we are supposed to be with privacy for BLPs in general and for suspected perpetrators of crimes? The issue seems to be scope rather than privacy. ] (]) 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ok I found the section that talks about privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. I don’t think the concerns listed are privacy concerns though. I don’t think his non notable family member names should be included. ] (]) 18:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Shell casing words do not match source == | |||
| The article currently states that the casings were marked: deny, delay, depose. The ABC article used as source for this (29) instead says they were marked: deny, defend, depose. I checked an AP article that also states deny, defend, depose. | |||
| Should this be updated or is the news getting it wrong? ] (]) 05:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's the news initially getting it wrong and correcting what they got wrong. This was initially reported by ABC as "deny", "defend", "depose", but a day later, a CNN report came out, reporting on the findings in greater detail, saying that "delay" was inscribed on a cartridge and that the words are "delay", "deny", "depose"; CNN mentioned the initial ABC report. ] often contain inaccuracies and editors favor reports that are not exactly breaking news, and therefore we favor the later CNN article over the earlier ABC one. Edit: I have added two sources that clarify this. —] 09:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the additional sources, it's great having an AP update reference that corrects their earlier mistake in particular. ] (]) 04:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == section called Possible motives == | |||
| I am very concerned about the '''Possible motives''' section. All the possible motives are 100% speculation. Until we have a court case in which lawyers put forth possible motives, we cannot list possible motives. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there any reason why we cannot report the possible motives written about in reliable secondary sources? <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a fine line, but because the suspect is alive and not convicted, we need to be especially cautious. We need to avoid presenting motives in a way that could be defamatory or prejudicial. If it is something a prosecutor on the case says, that would be okay. If it is an opinion from an "expert", that is highly speculative. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 02:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree, it's a fine line. We don't want to just throw in everyone's speculation, but at the same time we don't want to end up with a section that is just statements from police and prosecutors, who obviously have a professional interest in crafting a narrative that supports a certain legal outcome. I have wondered for some time if we should delete the sentences in the body and lede that amount to "police believe..." or anything similar, unless it is well-balanced by other perspectives. ] (]) 03:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think the balance would come from the defense lawyer? Right now we just have police statements. Once they go to court, that would be when additional information comes out. ] (]) 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We don't have a ]. I'd say the section is mostly fine as is, since almost everything is discussed in secondary sources, and the police statements are couched in "police believe". ] (]) 20:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We can include anything from the defence lawyer once sources report on that. ] (]) 21:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Lead changes== | |||
| Despite (by my count!) 8 people opposing Some1's preferred wording, which implies that a majority of Americans support the killing, . He argues that a majority of Americans support the killings and that there's no issue of present balance in the article. This has gone to the point where he's actively removing any tags related to NPOV or bias from the article. At this point I can't see it as a good faith difference of perspective and it's more like activism. ] (]) 23:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I restored the lead to the status quo version before your recent POV-pushing changes. That is not "my preferred wording". And enough with the false accusations or claims-- 8 people opposing? Where? And I've never "argue that a majority of Americans support the killings and that there's no issue of present balance in the article" nor am I "actively removing any tags related to NPOV or bias from the article." Even my revert still has the Unbalanced tag still in it. If you're going to make claims like that, please provide evidence (in the form of ]). Multiple editors on this talk and in the article history have noted your POV pushing on the article, so please discuss your changes here before EWing to your preferred version. ] (]) 00:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not POV pushing. | |||
| ::You think that this: | |||
| ::<blockquote>Online and social media reactions to the killing included contempt and mockery toward Thompson and UnitedHealth Group, as well as sympathy and praise for the assailant. More broadly, social media users criticized the U.S. healthcare system, and some users characterized the killing as deserved or justified. These attitudes were related to anger over UnitedHealth's business practices and those of the United States health insurance industry in general – primarily the strategy to deny coverage to clients. In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients who were denied coverage by insurance companies. Some public officials expressed dismay and offered condolences to Thompson's family. Inquiries about protective services and security for CEOs and corporate executives surged following the killing.</blockquote> | |||
| ::Is more neutral than: | |||
| ::<blockquote>The killing was widely denounced by politicians across the political spectrum, including by Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Amy Klobuchar, and Tim Walz. Scientific opinion polls taken of Americans have found that an overwhelming majority oppose the killing, believe that Mangione is guilty, and would vote for his conviction if they were a juror. Online, a notable social media campaign reacting to the killing with contempt and mockery towards Thompson's death, alongside revived criticism of the American healthcare system and healthcare insurers as a whole. Copycat threats against business leaders by others referencing the killing have occurred. Inquiries about protective services and security for CEOs and corporate executives surged following the killing.</blockquote> | |||
| ::Seriously? The vast majority of users here have already pointed out the problems with your preferred version on talk. It is actively misleading to readers if the article claims that the predominant reaction of Americans was glee, mockery, and celebration. Emerson is an established and well-regarded pollster. ] (]) 00:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::You responded negatively to my comments on your talk page in ]. Since then, you have refused to follow standard editorial practices, attempting to impose your version of the lead section out of order. After you were blocked due to edit warring on this article and your block expired, you continued to repeat similar comments on this talk page and made the same types of edits. You have not considered whether adopting the advised normal approach to content development would yield your desired results, nor have you pursued the usual methods of ]. Ultimately, you resorted to making accusations. —] 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I liked your previous version that had the word “polarized” because that can be found in maybe at least 3-4 sources, if not more. I do not like the new version because I am not sure how much of it can be verifiable by in line citations, which are good to have in case there are synth issues or content disputes. I think you really need to read the Misplaced Pages manual of style because you are not complying or understanding the guidelines is causing some editing disputes. ] (]) 01:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] says “'''Misplaced Pages articles must not contain original research.''' On ], ''original research'' means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no ] exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that ]. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are ''directly related'' to the topic of the article and ''directly support'' the material being presented.” | |||
| ::::I recommend you ] to avoid original research and disputes. The lead normally doesn’t need sources, but in this case it seems like synthesis of material is the main complaint from others so I recommend you make sure each sentence is verifiable. ] (]) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's definitely undue to imply or suggest a majority of Americans, or even a large portion, do, solely because of social media posts. The polls taken on this show support to be a pretty ] minority view, and by overweighting that viewpoint, this article is presenting an inaccurate image of public response. '''] ]''' 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I restored the shorter mention of the polling stuff in the lead paragraph, which now just mentions that polling reactions towards the killer and the killing are overall negative. The polling stuff are three paragraphs in the overall fairly long Reactions section; we don't need to break it down in the lead paragraph again. ] (]) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| And your version is problematic for many reasons: | |||
| *{{blue|widely denounced by politicians across the political spectrum, including by Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Amy Klobuchar, and Tim Walz.}} is ] and we don't need to name-drop all the politicians in the lead like that. | |||
| *{{blue|Scientific opinion polls taken of Americans have found that an overwhelming majority oppose the killing, believe that Mangione is guilty, and would vote for his conviction if they were a juror.}} is giving ] weight to that one Scott Rasmussen/RMG Research poll. | |||
| *RS don't call online and social media reactions "{{blue|a notable social media campaign}}" and don't characterize it as such. | |||
| *{{blue|Copycat threats against business leaders by others referencing the killing have occurred.}} is misleading and gives UNDUE weight to the one Florida woman incident. | |||
| Again, what I did was restore the ''status quo'' paragraph before your changes; that's not my "preferred version" of the lead, but what the paragraph was before your problematic, non-NPOV changes. ] (]) 00:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : The phrase "a notable social media campaign" stood out to me as well, as if to imply that all the online anger was being pushed out by a troll farm somewhere. That's really not the picture that emerges from the sources and I don't know why it was worded that way. I'll also point out that the reverted version conflated Emerson's sampling of "voters" with "Americans", when those are not the same population. ] (]) 00:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: Most American polls sample voters. Statistically, there is not really a huge difference between "voter" polls and polls of the populace, but either are more reliable than social media outrage, as the internet is not real life. '''] ]''' 00:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No one is saying that the social media outrage is reliable, as we are not relying on the expressions of the outrage as a source to support any of the statements made in the article. —] 01:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I'm getting the sense from this comment, and from your previous comment above, that you think we are supposed to weight the viewpoints in our articles by their prominence among the (American?) public. But that is very much not what the policy on due weight instructs us to do. The ] instructs us to weight viewpoints {{tq|in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in sources}}, not in proportion to editors' suppositions about how the public feels. ] (]) 01:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The article does, indeed, appear to overvalue random social media posts over actual public opinion. This is a problem, as it could mislead readers as to the actual public sentiment. It's important that we don't overvalue social media content, even content reported on by reliable sources. '''] ]''' 01:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No value is ascribed to social media posts. The statements in the article are not derived from social media posts. When the social media phenomenon resulting from this event is described, it is described consistent with how reliable sources describe it, and while you have described those sources above as as {{tq|bunch of random articles about social media posts}}, the articles are not ], they are all about the same thing and cover it directly and in detail. —] 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do you have evidence of this? There are enormous differences demographically between registered voters in the US and all Americans at large. Specifically we know that in states where registration is harder or has more stringent requirements, black people or people of color tend to not be registered as much as white people. Voter registration also differs by age. Do you have evidence that voter polls and polls of the general populace would have the same outcome here? The polls we ''do'' have already show a gap in support that changes with age. ] (]) 02:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Do you have evidence it's not? You're the one making the claim things are wildly different. Regardless, even a poll of voters (which most American polls use) is far more reliable than the random social media posts news outlets are speculating over. '''] ]''' 03:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: You are using the word "reliable" in a way that has no currency on Misplaced Pages. You seem to mean it as a shorthand for "a reliable synopsis of public opinion", which is not what ] is actually concerned with. What matters here is that we are providing an accurate synopsis of what has been published in reliable sources, with due weight to the relative prominence of various viewpoints in those sources. ] (]) 03:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: And yet we cast sources into different categories. Sources that are based mostly on social media posts will be valued less than those based on scientific polling; this is a standard used in, say, ]. It's why the article on '']'' doesn't treat social media outrage as genuine, comparative to the actual polls showing high public support. See also: Selina Zito "I went to a midwestern coffee shop" type articles. | |||
| :::::: If polls are saying one thing, and social media another, we should ] sources relying on analysis of social media posts. Even if that coverage comes from reliable sources, it's still of far, far lower quality. We can't make sweeping conclusions about public sympathy for an alleged murderer, other than that some sympathy exists, without the crucial context that polling shows the vast majority ''do not'' approve. '''] ]''' 04:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If sources decide to cover social media reactions more than polls, we give coverage of social media reactions more weight. It's as simple as that. ] (]) 05:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::If sources contradict the reality presented by polling, then no, we shouldn't. '''] ]''' 13:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::As per ], whatever weigh you think those polls should have does not override sources, and neither does it override what sources state (and we have a lot of sources covering the reactions to this killing). ] (]) 13:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Those sources are covering social media reactions to the killing, and many are naively assuming they represent majority opinion. We are under no obligation to publish unverified claims. | |||
| ::::::::::The Rasmussen poll was published by a secondary source, the Miami Herald, and Emerson's poll, which we all agree is a top-notch RS for polling, is generally consistent with Rasmussen, right down to the generational divide. What's interesting here is not just that the younger generations are less likely to find the killing “completely unacceptable,” but they’re also the least likely to utilize health services. Seems like support for the killer is not only a predominately online phenomenon, but most prevalent among demographics that are generally healthy and have minimal contact with the healthcare sector. | |||
| ::::::::::Of course I'm not suggesting we publish OR, but it's food for thought. I would edit the reaction section with caution and avoid, when possible, associating the mob on social media with disgruntled healthcare consumers. ] (]) 17:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::The Rasmussen poll was not published by ''Miami Herald''; that was another poll, the not-especially-credible one, per a talk section further up.{{pb}}About "unverified claims": None of us are in a position to appraise the actual reporting of journalists working for reputable media organizations as "unverified claims" (I'm contrasting a media outlet stating something in its own voice to quoted statements, embedded tweets and similar). We can come up with some editorial logic for not including something if a particular article seems suspicious, appears to contain inaccuracies, journalistic errors, etc., but calling legitimate reporting "unverified claims" isn't that logic. It is verifiable that there has been a highly noteworthy thing going on on the Internet. You yourself say that there has been an online phenomenon. Well that's what the article states as well.{{pb}}About the association of the mob with disgruntled healthcare consumers—what would you say about the following passage in an NYT article (): {{tqq|The shooting has also prompted patients and family members to weigh in publicly, sharing wrenching horror stories of insurance claim reimbursement stagnation and denials — painful recountings of insurance company interactions that have become all too familiar in a nation facing a health care crisis}}? —] 17:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::I was the one who linked the Miami Herald and was told it was the same Rasmussen poll, which was the same one in the Napolitan news service, although I may be confusing Rasmussen/Napolitan with Center for Strategic Politics -okay, fine, whatever. | |||
| ::::::::::::Every editorial decision to include/exclude news commentary is some type of appraisal. There are people here who don't want to include the poll but do want to include news reports about '''unverified '''social media claims, and others who think polling is more significant. | |||
| ::::::::::::''"None of us are in a position to appraise the actual reporting of journalists working for reputable media organizations as "'''unverified claims"'''"'' | |||
| ::::::::::::Oh really? Well that's exactly what happened on the RS noticeboard when I inquired about the Miami Herald piece. This happens all the time on here, and oftentimes it makes sense but sometimes it doesn't. To act like these journalists are conducting deep investigations into anonymous stories on social media is just silly. None of what's been said on social media has been verified -the reactions are the opinions of mostly anonymous users. ] (]) 18:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Regarding the NYT piece you just cited -sure, there are "healthcare horror" stories that are legitimate as well as predictable. When you're dealing with people's health and health outcomes, there are bound to be unhappy campers, which we find even in countries where healthcare is entirely government-run (here's Bloomberg on Britain's NHS: Delays, Waiting Lists and Horror Stories). But a related NYT piece also cites polls showing majority satisfaction with private health insurance, and cautions against reading too much into social media reactions. | |||
| :::::::::::::Your article also attributes the negative sentiment to private insurers "denying claims," when in fact no one knows how often this occurs on private plans.. The only data we have comes from public plans that UnitedHealthcare interacts with, like Medicare Advantage, where denial rates are bound to be much higher than the rate at which private claims are denied. So yes, that's an unverified claim. | |||
| :::::::::::::The Emerson poll shows support for the killer is strongest among the 18 -29 demographic, and one doesn't suspect this is over having their claims denied. Half of them are probably on their parents' insurance, and few will have serious health issues. ] (]) 18:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::Yes, you've mixed it up, and, sorry, but it isn't a "whatever". The distinction is a key one. If the ''Miami Herald'' article had been about the Rasmussen poll, that article would have been used as a source 100% and there would have been no questions about including the Rasmusen poll (which received no secondary coverage, so there have been questions). Editorial logic is that a newspaper reporting on the results on an opinion poll from a well-known pollster makes for a statement about a noteworthy fact that is due for inclusion. The ''Miami Herald'' however reports on the poll of a totally unknown and non-credible pollster, and is the only RS doing so. While there is no doubt that they are accurately reporting what the pollster claims their results are, there's nothing for us to go by to say that the existence of this poll is a noteworthy fact. There are many details surrounding this event that haven't been covered in this encyclopedia-style summary and that is one of them. On the other hand, the information about the Internet phenomenon in the reaction to the killing is sourced with vastly more sources that comprise vast journalistic labor: original reporting, analyses, transformative commentary... That is why the Internet thing is covered more and with greater ease for us editors here. —] 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::In this case, vast journalistic labor =repeating what's been said on social media. At least with the poll you could say there's a chance the Miami Herald analyzed it before publication, but with social media you're dealing with mostly anonymous commentary. I'm not saying don't include the reactions, only to take extra precautions in how it's presented. If a journalist wants to look foolish by taking social media opinion at face value, we're under no obligation as an encyclopedia to repeat his error. ] (]) 18:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::If the media reporting on random social media posts is noteworthy, so is them reporting on a scientific opinion poll. '''] ]''' 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::The media is only covering the Emerson College poll so far (Axios and The Hill); the other two polls don't have secondary RS coverage. ] (]) 23:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Academic commentators == | |||
| I'd like to hear what others think of this. I'm happy and willing to go with whatever the consensus is. I just would like to hear the opinions of additional editors. | |||
| I the following: | |||
| University of Pennsylvania professor Julia Alekseyeva said, “I have never been prouder to be a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.” She also said that Mangione was the “icon we all need and deserve.” She later said of her comments, “These were completely insensitive and inappropriate... and I retract them wholly. I do not condone violence and I am genuinely regretful of any harm the posts have caused.” Jeffrey Kallberg, the deputy dean of Penn’s School of Arts and Sciences, responded by saying, “Her comments regarding the shooting of Brian Thompson in New York City were antithetical to the values of both the School of Arts and Sciences and the University of Pennsylvania, and they were not condoned by the School or the University” and “Upon reflection, Assistant Professor Alekseyeva has concurred that the comments were insensitive and inappropriate and has retracted them... We welcome this correction and regret any dismay or concern this may have caused.”<ref>, PHL17 News, December 12, 2024</ref><ref>, USA Today, December 11, 2024</ref><ref>, The Daily Pennsylvanian, December 11, 2024</ref><ref>, Miami Herald, December 12, 2024</ref><ref>, Wall St. Journal, December 16, 2024</ref><ref>, CBS12, December 13, 2024</ref><ref>, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, December 13, 2024</ref><ref>, Philadelphia Enquirer, December 12, 2024</ref><ref>, Patriot News, December 12, 2024</ref><ref>, Philly Voice, December 12, 2024</ref><ref>, Daily Beast, December 12, 2024</ref> | |||
| ] it and commented, "WP:UNDUE to include a minor academic controversy on here... not really convinced this deserves a mention on an already long article." | |||
| I think it's worthy of inclusion due to the large number of sources that have reported on it. I'd like to hear what others think, and I'm willing to go along with whatever the consensus is. Thank you for your comments. | |||
| ] (]) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think it belongs in the article. Julia Alekseyeva is not notable. And the dispute or controversy is minor. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I think they may be due for conclusion. The quotes are significant insofar as they're an example of an otherwise intelligent, responsible academic getting caught up in social media hysteria and using poor judgement. She seems to have quoted the movie The Dark Night Rises (ie ''"Because he's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now."''), which is hilarious considering the villain in that movie manipulated a mob of economic populists (much like Mangione's supporters), which Batman then had to fight in that iconic Wall Street riot scene. Many took that film to be a critique of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and populism in general.. ] (]) 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :i feel that if we are in the territory of negative reaction to the postive reaction to accused killer in a killing of article, we are several degrees of freedom from the main point of the article. | |||
| :this article should not be about every reaction or hot take folks have and the backlash to that hot take… maybe a different article? ] (]) 20:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, the general editing trend here is to report on random social media commentary because, ''reliable sources,'' but heavily scrutinize contradictory information that's also been published by reliable sources. I'd remind everyone that a man was murdered and a mob on the internet reacted by claiming his company was responsible for "thousands of deaths." If an academic fell victim to this mentality but is now retracting earlier comments, and this is reported in RSes, it may be significant. ] (]) 20:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::that last bit about including it to condemn cheering violence from the public masses is ] territory and is not a valid reason for inclusion. this info can be part of a different article about reactions to the murder (which could be useful at this point). i removed it as it is very ancillary from the main info of this article, as per ] ] (]) 20:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::actually, not sure an explicit article about "reaction to killing of brian thompson" is warranted right now too. Could be a case of ]. ] (]) 20:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, Alekseyeva ia a professor in English and Cinema and Media Studies. She's not an expert in crime or health insurance or economics. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::As one would expect from a remark like this.. ] (]) 20:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Reliable sources appear to be covering this in detail. I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned. '''] ]''' 20:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think for any academic reactions, the person needs to be a notable academic and should be an expert in a field related to the killing. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Wow! That's a lot of comments. Thank you to everyone who offered their opinion on this. ] (]) 19:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{reftalk}} | |||
| == Why not "Murder of brian Thompson" == | |||
| As I understand Wiki-policy, articles should be titled "murder of "x" unless the killing is or might be lawful, like in cases of self-defense or something like the Killing of Osama Bin Laden. There's no chance that this killing was legal, and it definitely resulted in Thompson's death, so shouldn't this article be renamed? Am I missing something? | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:%22Murder_of%22_articles#%22Killing_of%22_articles ] (]) 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The {{tq|There's no chance that this killing was legal}} part doesn't seem like our call to make; no one has been convicted of a murder yet in this case. ] (<span style="font-variant:small-caps">]</span>) 01:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] but we need a legal guilty verdict first. Otherwise, its just killing. ] (]) 01:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Because "murder" is a legal term that requires a court conviction to establish guilt. Referring to it as a "murder" before a trial presumes the suspect's guilt, violating the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Using the term "killing" is neutral and factual, describing the event without implying legal judgment. For Misplaced Pages, media outlets, law enforcement, government officials, and lawyers, the term murder should not be used until a jury or judge finds a suspect guilty of murder. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there a reason the term killing is being used instead of assassination? Misplaced Pages’s own definition of the word seems to fit this. ] (]) 22:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq2|Even if a death appears to be an assassination, the article title should not use the term assassination unless that term is part of the established common name. Outside of a well-founded argument that "Assassination of X" is the common name, a proposal to move a page to such a name will probably be met with much controversy and be unlikely to succeed.|source=]}} ] | ] 22:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::A quick search of Google results indicates that "assassination of brian thompson" is the most common (32.3 million results overall, 67,600 for news), and "killing of brian thompson" is at (29 million results overall, 44,200 for news), if that helps. Seems pretty similar overall. '''] ]''' 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::we don't use google search results for crimes like this. see ] for the general principles we try to use. edit: I think its an ] not quite a policy, but generally has to be a good reason to not follow a well-subscribed to essay. ] (]) 23:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It's probably useful for establishing a ], which is what I was responding to. The gap between the two ("killing" and "assassination") isn't that large, that's my point. '''] ]''' 23:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If it can be persuasively shown that assassination is the common name, the article can be moved to "Assassination of ...". The problem is that the "assassination" language competes with the "murder" language, and there's also "killing", "shooting"... So there is almost zero chance that "Assassination of ..." is the common name because a common name is {{tqi|a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority}}. I wouldn't recommend starting an RM; the outcome is too predictable. —] 23:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Would a redirect page be defensible? Do we already have redirects? ] (]) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I just checked, both ] and ] point here. ] (]) 21:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Should we remove the CCTV footage? == | |||
| {{atop|Keeping the CCTV footage has strong support. The possibility that a consensus to remove it will form seems negligible.—] 23:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| I feel like this one's been litigated before but I don't remember the discussion. I don't think we should be showing video of a shooting on Misplaced Pages, and I don't think it provides any real encyclopedic value anyway. At best, we could have an external link, but I don't believe it belongs on WikiMedia's servers. ] (]) 09:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : I believe that it can be justified. Why would you say that there's no, real encyclopedic value for showing it? ] (]) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't understand what kind of encyclopedic value could be derived from a video of a man being shot and killed, particularly when we could instead include a textual description of it. We already have a still at the top of the page. ] (]) 21:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::It literally illustrates the subject of the entire article. If that's the case, why can we have the still image, but not the video? ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why would showing the footage via an embedded external video be fine but not having the video on Wikimedia? ] (]) 10:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : ]. ] (]) 13:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Hard no. Two separate discussions have supported its inclusion. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Mind you ] also exists. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 21:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh ok yea. I thought I had saw a discussion of this but I couldn't remember for sure. You can one click archive this now ] (]) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Archive now}} ] | ] 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not archiving per below comment, otherwise would have clicked the button. ] (]) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree, as per ] and also because I believe few things are more illustrative of the subject of the article than a literal video of the shooting. ] (]) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{abot}} | |||
| == Ken Klippenstein's claims == | |||
| Personal news blogs are not the best sources for information. Although Klippenstein is an experienced reporter, by publishing stories on his own website means he does not fall under the same scrutiny a reporter for a newspaper encounters. Self-publishing skips editorial reviews, fact-checking teams, and legal oversight. This can result in less accountability and a greater risk of errors or bias, making independent reporting less reliable than work vetted through established news organizations. | |||
| Can any of his claims be substantiated by another sources? Or have any of his claims been reported by any news organizations? If the answer is yes to either of those questions, such sources should be added to beef up the legitimacy of Klippenstein's claims. If the answer is no to either of those questions, maybe Klippenstein's claims are questionable. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 02:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I did a quick Google search and found https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9nxee2r0do which does mention the handwritten manifesto and quotes it. Ken Klippenstein may have been the original publisher, but the manifesto itself is obviously fine. The BBC article doesn't go into the rest of his claims in any particular detail though so it's probably worth getting a second source for all of them at least. ] (]) 10:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with @] that we could avoid using the Klippenstein source. ] (]) 15:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not what I said. Klippenstein is generally a reliable source in my view, but he still is self-pub. I have no issue with using him as a source, so long as there's another secondary source repeating his claim. ] (]) 21:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Overlap between this article and ] == | |||
| As many have pointed out, there is a significant amount of overlapping info between the #Suspect subheading on this article and the article on Luigi. | |||
| Now that the ] seems bound to return a Keep decision, I believe we should work on moving most info about him to that article and making the #Suspect section more of a summary, so that work on this text can be centralized on a single location. What do you think? ] (]) 15:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The last two paragraphs of the ] (regarding his political and religious views) could be removed from this article as they're unrelated to the killing. (The two paragraphs are already included in the ] article so nothing needs to be 'moved' per se, just removed from the section in this article.) ] (]) 19:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of the images of the charges indictment documents == | |||
| I am removing them from the article. They can be listed in External links. They can be summarized in the article. Not sure why they are being shown as images in the article itself. | |||
| By summarizing the documents, we ensures the article remains accessible to a wider audience. Also, we ensure the relevant information is integrated into the narrative. | |||
| There is no need to put the into the article as images. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I disagree. They allow the reader to directly read the indictment should they so choose. This provides our readers with the ability to directly access the documents that the section if referencing, and thus understand it in context. By doing so, the readers' understanding is expanded, and thus they add encyclopedic value. There is nothing preventing us from integrating the necessary detail into the article itself, Misplaced Pages is ] so there is no reasonable size concerns (as reading the original indictment document is entirely optional). I have reverted your change, pending the outcome of the ] cycle. ] 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| @] you said I reverted the removal of the poll because I had bias against “the elite 1%”? Firstly, that is no reason to revert an edit. Everyone has bias, but that doesn’t matter if the information is reliable and relevant, which it is. Second, I don’t know where you got that I had bias. I admit that I’m progressive in my user page, but I haven’t said anything about the 1%. Third, the information presented would work against my alleged bias. It shows that most people don’t like the man that shot a CEO. I hope we can clear this up and figure out the inclusion of this poll. ] (]) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == removal of highlighted excerpt of suspect's writing == | |||
| == Napolitan News poll == | |||
| I removed an inserted quote from the Manifesto section of an excerpt of the suspect's alleged writing ("Frankly, these parasites simply had it coming. A reminder: the US has the #1 most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we rank roughly #42 in life expectancy.") By highlighting a particular excerpt it creates a bias. | |||
| Should we include the Napolitan News poll? I think we should. As discussed previously, some of Rammussen’s work is bias, but he is still a respected pollster. This poll seems fine. ] (]) 00:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As said before in Archive 6: “The polling is by Scott Rasmussen, a right-wing albeit widely used pollster in polling aggregates. (Nate Silver's models, DecisionDeskHQ, CNN, and others all use him; the notable exception is that post-Nate Silver 538 notably doesn't.) I don't see the problem with sourcing it with attribution. His polls are widely used on Misplaced Pages.” ] (]) 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :What bias do you think it imposes? Multiple articles (not just Klippenstein!) have quoted those sentences, and it helps to illustrate a potential reason for Mangione's actions. ] (]) 21:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::This was discussed a while ago and I thought it was already in the article. Have any secondary RSes reported this poll? ] (]) 00:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:28, 28 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Killing of Brian Thompson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
| 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 rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Editors have formed the following consensus:
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Removal of the images of the charges indictment documents
I am removing them from the article. They can be listed in External links. They can be summarized in the article. Not sure why they are being shown as images in the article itself.
By summarizing the documents, we ensures the article remains accessible to a wider audience. Also, we ensure the relevant information is integrated into the narrative.
There is no need to put the into the article as images. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. They allow the reader to directly read the indictment should they so choose. This provides our readers with the ability to directly access the documents that the section if referencing, and thus understand it in context. By doing so, the readers' understanding is expanded, and thus they add encyclopedic value. There is nothing preventing us from integrating the necessary detail into the article itself, Misplaced Pages is WP:NOTPAPER so there is no reasonable size concerns (as reading the original indictment document is entirely optional). I have reverted your change, pending the outcome of the WP:BRD cycle. Melmann 21:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with @Melmann as I do believe the indictment file presents the Government's view on the Killing of Brian Thompson and ensures Neutral Point of View. Plus since this article is about a criminal act (The two facts of Murder is a criminal act and the suspect currently indicted for the killing of Brian Thompson is innocent until proven guilty are not mutually exclusive) the legal indictment detailing the standing for the charges against the suspect is relevant and encyclopedic if that makes sense but I see where you're coming from @Kingturtle! Sincerely, Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
File:Luigi Mangione Mugshot.jpg
Is it too much that ENWP doesn't use images stolen from the internet in it's articles? Not sure why everyone seems so apathethic about this--Trade (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Reread what you've written and ask yourself: will other editors be able to deduce what you're talking about? Einsof (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- You mean pleading the community to stop uploading copyvio to Commons just for the sake of having a better photo of him? Trade (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think I'm understanding that you believe that this image should not be used because it's taken from the internet. This image is his mugshot. It was taken by the Pennsylvania local government and is available for public use, with or without explicit permission. guninvalid (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's been nominated for deletion for copyright reason. Hzh (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is that for sourcing reasons or becuase of the actual mugshot itself? (PS. this is not supposed to be passive agressive and I don't know how to reword it I am simply curious) :) Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Works of PA are subject to copyright restrictions. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Issue is with with Pennsylvania where the mugshot was taken. Can be uploaded here under fair use, but probably not in the Commons where they have stricter criteria. Hzh (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ahhh that makes sense. Thank You! Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Works of PA are subject to copyright restrictions. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is that for sourcing reasons or becuase of the actual mugshot itself? (PS. this is not supposed to be passive agressive and I don't know how to reword it I am simply curious) :) Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Appareantly backing up the claim of public use up with any evidence isnt required either Trade (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's been nominated for deletion for copyright reason. Hzh (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
CloudResearch poll
KTVK (Arizona Family) reported on a CloudResearch poll. KTVK is reliable, but I don't know what to say of the poll. I can't seem to find the poll itself anywhere, and the article doesn't link to it. This is also the only source to report on it. The poll was conducted "Engage AI". I don't know if that could even be considered on here. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- we could attribute it. seems fair, if KTVK is talking about it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Alright Personisinsterest (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't work. KTVK, a reliable source, stated that this poll occurred in their own voice. Attributing a statement of fact from a reliable source is not needed. That's not different from any other statement of fact in our article sourced to a reliable secondary source—for them we also do not attribute. —Alalch E. 11:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- Engage is described on the CloudResearch official website: https://www.cloudresearch.com/products/engage/ –
Engage turns surveys into dynamic, engaging conversations by leveraging advanced generative AI.
The people are real whereas the survey, instead of a questionnaire, is a chatbot conversation. —Alalch E. 11:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change delay deny depose to deny defend depose 2600:6C58:6500:62A:1D17:BAF6:F6C7:4D28 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: There have been varying reports on the words found on the cartridges. Police clarified that "defend" was not one of the words after some confusion.--♦IanMacM♦ 12:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Misinformation
It think we need to make it clear, once and for all, that no one has any idea how often health insurers deny private claims, and that most data available comes from public plans, like Medicare Advantage, which in all likelihood inflate the denial rate. In the background section the article states: "UnitedHealthcare has been widely criticized for its handling of claims. The rate at which post-acute care claims were denied more than doubled between 2020 and 2022." -but when you look at the source, it's clear they got this data from a government report about people on Medicare Advantage. Some context to consider when you edit this stuff is that overtreatment on public plans happens much more frequently, with some estimates indicating as much as 40% of medical treatment on public plans could be considered unnecessary. You are not going to find denial rates on private plans this high because a) overutilization is much less of an issue; and b) the people being covered are younger and more healthier than Medicare recipients. The line should be edited to reflect the actual source, like where they got that rate from.
I would also question how much of this background section is actually "background" pertaining to this particular case. Polling consistently shows that support for the killer is the strongest among age groups that have minimal contact with the healthcare sector, like the 18 -29 cohort. To imply that this social media phenomenon is being driven by people getting Medicare claims denied is just silly. The section also talks about people protesting Optum's PBM business, but Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare -both owned by UnitedHealth Group, but separate subsidiaries. The killer had no personal connections to this company, and his own notebook states that he only decided to hit insurance back in August of this year (I presume this means he was contemplating other industries). I suspect that as these trials proceed and prosecutors give jurors a reality check, reliable sources will more accurately reflect the context of this case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- this is WP:FORUMing to rant about medicare overtreatment and that youth support of luigi mangione is driving social media. please include an actionable, specific edit request. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't "FORUMing" -it's assuming good faith and providing you with context, rather than accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting a source. Read the quoted statement ("The rate at which post-acute care claims were denied more than doubled between 2020 and 2022") and read what the source says (this was pertaining to people on Medicare Advantage, which represents a small fraction of United's business).
- You must be new on this article because most of these issues had been discussed ad nauseum on the archived talk page. That support for Mangione is mainly youth demos (so, not Medicare recipients) is just obvious from the polling -check polling by Emerson, Rasmussen, The Economist, YouGov etc. Familiarize yourself with this case so other editors don't have to write book chapters in talk. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonathan f1: Be civil. Anyone can edit. EF 18:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but the line in bold should be corrected to reflect the source. The denial rate cited in the article, which makes it seem like it's for all plans or private plans, is strictly for Medicare Advantage. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonathan f1: Be civil. Anyone can edit. EF 18:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Revert
@Illicit Vellichor you said I reverted the removal of the poll because I had bias against “the elite 1%”? Firstly, that is no reason to revert an edit. Everyone has bias, but that doesn’t matter if the information is reliable and relevant, which it is. Second, I don’t know where you got that I had bias. I admit that I’m progressive in my user page, but I haven’t said anything about the 1%. Third, the information presented would work against my alleged bias. It shows that most people don’t like the man that shot a CEO. I hope we can clear this up and figure out the inclusion of this poll. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Napolitan News poll
Should we include the Napolitan News poll? I think we should. As discussed previously, some of Rammussen’s work is bias, but he is still a respected pollster. This poll seems fine. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- As said before in Archive 6: “The polling is by Scott Rasmussen, a right-wing albeit widely used pollster in polling aggregates. (Nate Silver's models, DecisionDeskHQ, CNN, and others all use him; the notable exception is that post-Nate Silver 538 notably doesn't.) I don't see the problem with sourcing it with attribution. His polls are widely used on Misplaced Pages.” Personisinsterest (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- This was discussed a while ago and I thought it was already in the article. Have any secondary RSes reported this poll? Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Low-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report