Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Brian Thompson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Assassination"

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, they are:

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

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

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

Cont. ("Assassination")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Assassination" come on, this isn't Tupac or Biggie Smalls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:f90:4320::660 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not an assassination

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

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

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

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

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

Was I right - did you mean to write assassination and not assignation? The encounter between the alleged suspect and Mr Thompson looked very little like a romantic assignation - quite the opposite in fact. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't even a question of copyright or platforming. Misplaced Pages simply is not a place for full-text documents. Short excerpts can be fine. Short summaries can be fine. External links to full-text documents can be fine. Kingturtle = (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Quoting full-texts is forbidden as is quoting "lengthy" excerpts. Therefore although 250 words is not lengthy, if it's the full manifesto it is prohibited. Our options going forward are either to change the WP:POLICY, or alternatively would it work for you if the editor who wants to insert the manifesto left out a couple of words from the end? In other words, neither a lengthy nor a full-text reproduction? That seems like a good way for you and @GordonGlottal to move past this impasse you find yourselves in. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Employee or customer

Sources, even reliable ones, say different things about who called the police from the Altoona McDonald's. Was it a customer or an employee? Bearian (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that RS are confused about this. However, it seems credible that an employee called 911 after being alerted by a customer. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like both customers and an employee were involved, but the employee was the one who actually called. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources for "The Adjuster"

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you! added it back with these better sources iRDM 04:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

GiveSendGo fundraiser

"A GiveSendGo fundraiser has remained live, and has raised over $30,000 as of December 11." yet the references cited are from December 10 and don't reflect the updated amount:

🐦DrWho42 👻 08:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: Biden, Trump, Kennedy

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

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

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

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

I think this was added by @RomanianObserver41 Wafflefrites (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of this social media content stuff and the examples you gave have little relevance to the article (which is about the event, the killing of the CEO, and not Mangione himself). If he has his own Luigi Mangione article, then all that can be moved there. But again, since this is the event article, the Suspect section should include items that are relevant to the killing. I attempted to trim the Suspect section (by removing Mangione showed a skeptical attitude towards both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, while showing apparent support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s run for president in 2024. In July 2024, Mangione described reactions to Project 2025, a plan for Trump's second term developed by The Heritage Foundation, as "qanon but for redditors. and His social media expressed concerns over pornography, DEI programs, fertility rates, "wokeism", secularization, and the decline of Christianity, and promoted traditionalist ideas. which have nothing to do with the killing) but was reverted. Pinging The Midnite Wolf, since they reverted. Some1 (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging. My issue was mostly that the edit summary invoked a page that doesn't exist. If that was the only justification, it would be better to leave the content so that it can be easily moved if the page is created. It's normal for event pages to have mini-biographies of persons related to the event if said persons don't have their own pages.

The first sentence listed should stay imo since his politics are of interest, but I'm fine getting rid of the second one. – MW_(t•c) 01:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The first sentence (regarding Biden/Trump/Kennedy Jr.) is more fitting for his own article (which I honestly think he should have), but has little relevance to this event article (unless the killing was partly inspired by one of the three politicians, which reliable sources don't show). Some1 (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

For the sentences on politics, do the sources contain the word “motive”? Are the police or sources directly saying he was motivated by politics? If not, the politics should go in a separate section and not the “Motive” section, or the section should be renamed. Wafflefrites (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. – MW_(t•c) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Typed that reply before you added the parentheses. The second sentence should be removed if only because it requires a separate paragraph explaining the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025, QAnon, and "redditors" as a derogatory term, but everything else should stay imo. In a high profile case like this people are gonna be interested in the suspect's politics, and the information is fine to give background on Mangione as a person. If we're only including stuff directly related to the case then we should also remove the following:

Mangione graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 2020 with a Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSE) in computer engineering and a Master of Science in Engineering (MSE) in computer and information science. He is from a Maryland-based real estate family. – MW_(t•c) 01:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

His educational background is basic biographical information, while his views toward the three politicians who were running for president in 2024 and social media concerns aren't. But I won't be opposed if those two sentences you quoted get removed either. Some1 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed up top and my opinion is that there's too much info about Mangione himself that belongs in an article about Mangione, if one ever exists. His political views don't matter much except as they relate to the murder. His education isn't relevant either -he isn't notable beyond this murder. He should be discussed simply as someone with healthcare grievances and some brief mention about the contents of his manifesto is due. If more info comes to light as to his motivations that can always be added. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E.: Why do you believe these following sentences that I've removed: Mangione showed a skeptical attitude towards both Joe Biden and Donald Trump, while showing apparent support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s run for president in 2024. In July 2024, Mangione described reactions to Project 2025, a plan for Trump's second term developed by The Heritage Foundation, as "qanon but for redditors. and His social media expressed concerns over pornography, DEI programs, fertility rates, "wokeism", secularization, and the decline of Christianity, and promoted traditionalist ideas. are relevant to this article about the killing? Some1 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Because they are about Mangione, the suspect. In any event article we can put as much information about participants as we deem editorially justified. This helps readers understand his views and where he's coming from a little better. —Alalch E. 04:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

How does His social media expressed concerns over pornography, for example, help readers "understand his views and where he's coming from a little better"? Some1 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a part of how "He gravitated toward “traditionalism,”" (from the quote/source) and how he promoted traditionalist ideas (from the article). He had a particular view of the world, and the idea of doing something might have formed within this view. This is why the topic is being covered in the sources. —Alalch E. 05:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Eh, that sentence (His social media expressed concerns over pornography, DEI programs, fertility rates, "wokeism", secularization, and the decline of Christianity, and promoted traditionalist ideas.) looks like a laundry list of his personal views that aren't related to his possible motives for the killing. But whatever. It's in the Background section now, which I guess is the section where people can add information about Mangione's personal life and beliefs. Some1 (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The background section isn't for all sorts of personal life and personal belief information. It needs to be limited to things related to the lead up, the carrying out, and the aftermath of the incident. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't know what's up with this. The best editors I know on here understand that the average reader has a short attention span and so it's wise to get right to the point and stick to material relevant to the main subject, in this case the killing. As the weeks go by, A LOT more info is going to come out that will need to be added, so it's best to leave room now. You don't want to have a bunch of stuff about his religious views, his education, all his political views, DEI, secularization, RFK Jr. At some point it's going to turn into an article about Mangione. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

To make a rules-based argument, this is verging on WP:Coatrack. Jonathan f1 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Readers with a short attention span read the first sentence and take a look at the infobox and scroll halfway through the article, looking at images; they might read a few captions. More ambitious short-attention-span readers might read the entire first paragraph, scroll all the way and might read all of the captions. Some in-between readers might even read the entire lead section. And then we get to readers who read the actual article: Those are no longer readers with a short attentions span. So yes, while there are many readers with a short attention span, wp:Misplaced Pages is comprehensive for the readers with fully functioning attention. The rest have the bits designed specifically for them: the lead and the infobox. —Alalch E. 10:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Killing vs. murder

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

I would be in favor of removing those categorizations / Trilomonk (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

With a professional understanding of the mens rea that qualifies a homicide as murder, it does look on the face of it to be a murder. But you are quite correct - one can only conclude a homicide to be a murder on the basis of a court verdict. At the moment it's only an alleged murder if CNN is to be believed. So for now we should use the term homicide, provided we are content that Mr Thompson's death due to gunshot wounds was not self-inflicted. What do other editors think? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:DEATHS specifies waiting for a conviction for murder. I don't see anyone contesting it as a homicide, thus us referring to it as a "killing" (as opposed to a suicide or natural cause etc.) Alpacaaviator (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Quite so, that is exactly what I wrote. Thanks, it's great to have your learned support. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Removed Category:2024 murders in the United States. —Alalch E. 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

People accused of crime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During this discussion, you announced several times how you aren't going to bother to read any of the help/guideline pages that other editors linke to. If you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, it is important that you read and understand these guidelines. You aren't helping your case here. Cortador (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point of disagreement was as simple as me asking:

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

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

"So X is allowed?", the response being

"Read it again".

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

Banners and Posters

Apparently people are now doing banner drops and putting up 'Wanted' posters of CEOs outside the NYSE. I think this probably deserves at least a mention. Reflecktor (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring lede

@RomanianObserver41 I looked at the sources you used. The Sky News one didn’t say the word “minority” anywhere, the National Review one is an opinion piece in an RSP yellow partisan source, and the last one is a blog. Stop edit warring this. Snokalok (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

1.) The version you're advocating for implies that a majority of Americans approved of the murder. There's no evidence for this and multiple people have stated the exact opposite.

2.) Noah Smith is an expert and self-published works are permissible in this context per the rule you cited. The exact opposite of what you claim.

3.) "Vocal minority" isn't a majority.

Alright? RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Noah Smith post

I restored the article by Noah Smith. The guidelines state that Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications

He's a tenured economist, has published major papers, and his works are routinely published in the press. I'd call that a notable voice. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You left this part out: "Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources" and: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources". But irregardless, edit warring isn't the way to make your point so please refrain from that. Reflecktor (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to it being an SPS, it's WP:UNDUE to have an entire subsection dedicated to Smith's opinion on the matter, so I've removed that section. Some1 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to Smith's recent piece about providers being mostly responsible for driving up costs -his analysis seems reasonable, but it's controversial and widely disputed. In the debate over providers vs middlemen, the dominant view is that it's the middlemen, not providers or drug companies, profiting off inflated drug prices, which has consequences that are felt throughout the entire healthcare system (anything that drives up costs causes insurance companies to scrutinize claims more closely). But the way that Smith uses the term "middlemen" to refer to an insurance business is not typically how the term's used in the industry: it more often refers to Pharmacy benefit managers, who could operate as part of an insurance company like UH, or retail pharmacies like CVS. UnitedHealth Group does indeed own one of the largest PBMs, but it operates under Optum, which is a separate subsidiary from UnitedHealthcare. Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, not Optum. Optum's CEO is Heather Cianfrocco.

This does in fact deflect attention away from UnitedHealthcare's insurance business, and if it happens to be covered in RSes I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned (if discussed in relation to this killing). If you do a search for PBMs/middlemen and healthcare costs, you'll find extensive coverage in both academic literature and mainsteam press. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yet another condescending sound spelling

The very notoriety of Luigi Mangione has made it so we all know how to pronounce his name. Not only that, you doubled down by doing it for the first AND last when Luigi is a name familiar just thanks alone to Super Mario Bros.. Get rid of it. 2600:4809:7270:F800:6909:3452:2B59:121C (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages