Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CommunityNotesContributor (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 25 December 2024 (OneClickArchived "Luigi Mangione's booking photo" to Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 6). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:15, 25 December 2024 by CommunityNotesContributor (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchived "Luigi Mangione's booking photo" to Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 6)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 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:

Death Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is consensus to include the name of the suspect in the article.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

December 8 to 14, 2024

Polls: Americans have overwhelmingly negative views of the killing

Scientific opinion polls have shown that 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? RomanianObserver41 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the two polls that are being discussed are: Scott Rasmussen/Napolitan News Service/RMG Research Inc poll conducted on December 12, 2024 and The Center for Strategic Politics poll conducted on December 11, 2014. Some1 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The "Center for Strategic Politics" does not pass the smell test. Looking at an archive.org snapshot, 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. Einsof (talk) 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. Snokalok (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The original Twitter link was taken from this. 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. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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. ~Darth Stabro 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does lend credibility to the poll. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 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. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep, seems good ꧁Zanahary꧂ 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. Treespeaks (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Herald and the Independent are pretty reliable, to be clear, and the website says it's been cited by NY Post and The Gazette as well. I would also like to note that RealClearPolling 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. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources have reported this, and that makes it credible. Mostly everyone agrees, so I'm going to put it in. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:04, 22 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. Cortador (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A person reverted back my change 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 found the exact thing! 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.) RomanianObserver41 (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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. Einsof (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It does not work that way. Per WP:NEWSORG, 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: Press releases from organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism 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. Einsof (talk) 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. ~Darth Stabro 17:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 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). Jonathan f1 (talk) 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 (WP:NEWSORG). That is exactly what is going on here. Einsof (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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? Jonathan f1 (talk) 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. Einsof (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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 Industrial Society and Its Future... 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. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The final introductionary sentence should read:

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.

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! RomanianObserver41 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be giving WP:UNDUE 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: User_talk:RomanianObserver41#Adding_new_information_to_articles_should_be_done_in_the_body_first. Some1 (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That's circular reasoning. Both the lead and body obviously need to be revised. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I posed this question to the RS noticeboard]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 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. CNC (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The polls are soft sources, and there are better sources such as Killing of insurance CEO reveals simmering anger at US health system in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

BBC is top draw RS. OR will get you nowhere here. CNC (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"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. CNC (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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. CNC (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the poll you want to include "61% of respondents said they have a strong or somewhat negative perception of Mangione,", making that quote accurate and not an issue. CNC (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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. CNC (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Patience is a virtue. CNC (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So they say.. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Since a few editors here have concerns with the phrase "Many Americans", I've attempted to reword it . Some1 (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 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."Boynamedsue (talk) 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. Wafflefrites (talk) 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.

Boynamedsue (talk) 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. Wafflefrites (talk) 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.Boynamedsue (talk) 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. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Another poll, this time from Emerson, 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. Toa Nidhiki05 15:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Polling wise, Emerson as a source is about as reliable as you can get. CNC (talk) 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, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, 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. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The tag you added is for the article, not the lead paragraph. Cortador (talk) 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 WP:Dispute resolution as needed. —Alalch E. 23:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Kindly see the above comment. —Alalch E. 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. Toa Nidhiki05 23:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But where is it ?? CNC (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s linking to this discussion. You could find this out by clicking on the tag. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm shocked by this reply. —Alalch E. 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. Toa Nidhiki05 00:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you dispute this edit with the edit summary of 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. —Alalch E. 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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. —Alalch E. 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. Toa Nidhiki05 00:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You said 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. —Alalch E. 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. Toa Nidhiki05 01:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Preposterous remark seeing how you added the top tag based on a single sentence in the lead section (Special:Diff/1263637194) 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. —Alalch E. 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? Toa Nidhiki05 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. —Alalch E. 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Where is the dedicated discussion for this issue? Per template documentation, 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. CNC (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

~~It’s linking to this discussion. You could find this out by clicking on the tag. Toa Nidhiki05 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)~~ (this was meant to be a response above)

How is the tag supposed to help resolve the content dispute? —Alalch E. 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? Toa Nidhiki05 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.) RomanianObserver41 (talk) 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 wp:Dispute resolution before? —Alalch E. 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what the tag is for. Again - are you not familiar with how tags work? Toa Nidhiki05 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 TFD (talk) 07:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Why should it not be tagged? This is how tags work. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 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. Cortador (talk) 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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. Cortador (talk) 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. —Alalch E. 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? Some1 (talk) 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. Toa Nidhiki05 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. TFD (talk) 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 63rd out of 282 pollsters by 538, or the first quartile. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 18 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. 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)

Appareantly backing up the claim of public use up with any evidence isnt required either Trade (talk) 01:15, 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)

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)

Categories: