Revision as of 16:25, 26 December 2024 editJonathan f1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,768 edits →Misinformation: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 09:01, 30 December 2024 edit undoIanmacm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,162 edits →Casings’ Inscriptions: expand |
(19 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) |
Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|algo = old(7d) |
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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--] (]) 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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 == |
|
== CloudResearch poll == |
Line 66: |
Line 42: |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::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. ] (]) 18:15, 26 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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
@] 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hello, there seems to be some confusion, I do not think you are biased. The Rasmussen poll was removed for bias because of their "elite 1%" website, that's what I was talking about. I see no issue with the NORC poll, if that is the one you are talking about (I saw you have contributed to it). ] (]) 01:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh, alright then. ] (]) 12:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::But also, the Rammussen poll is fine. His polls are used by reliable aggregators and media organizations. Even Misplaced Pages uses him. I’m not aware of the website about the elite 1%, but I don’t think it’s relevant. He’s obviously biased and we know that, but he is reliable. I’m adding it back in. ] (]) 22:19, 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. ] (]) 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) |
|
|
::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) |
|
|
:::There is one semi-reliable source. . ] (]) 12:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Casings’ Inscriptions == |
|
|
|
|
|
Authorities have reported the shell casings were inscribed with “defend”, “deny”, “depose” rather than “delay”, “deny”, “depose” as is incorrectly stated in this article. I just wanted to put this here in hopes that someone with authority to edit can correctly amend the article. ] (]) 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
The neutrality of this passage has been disputed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
*See ] above. The ] section in the article also makes clear that the police later clarified that "defend" was not one of the words.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 08:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Authorities have reported the shell casings were inscribed with “defend”, “deny”, “depose” rather than “delay”, “deny”, “depose” as is incorrectly stated in this article. I just wanted to put this here in hopes that someone with authority to edit can correctly amend the article. Avecurch (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)