Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Suspect name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See #RfC: Name of suspect. —Alalch E. 09:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

---

The arrested suspect's name is being published by several news outlets, but doesn't seem to be confirmed by police. Per WP:BLPCRIME/WP:SUSPECT, we probably shouldn't publish the name until the police confirm. There is a press conference in a few hours.

Discuss below. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that if and when Luigi Mangione is charged, we amend the infobox to say "1" under "Accused". Until then, he's a mere person of interest. In short, I agree with you. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it would seem as if we have enough confirmation to put his name in the body of the article but placing his name in the infobox seems premature. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Darth Stabro: Is that the guy whose name you put in the article? I don't know, but the New York Times gives it as the name of the suspect. Now please quit reverting me, you are over WP:3RR. I've put in 90% of the info about the suspect. You just keep putting it at the bottom of the section, which is not useful at all. If you want to put it at the bottom of the section, just call an RFC below. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The alias on his fake ID is not his identity and therefore I added it. I did not add, and have removed per policy, the reported real name. Please see #Assailant's identity paragraph below for the discussion on the identity paragraph. I have not reverted you since your request. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The NYPD police commissioner named him, so... doesn't seem to be confirmed by police is just flat wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As of when I originally posted, I hadn't seen any official confirmation on any news sites. With confirmation by the commissioner, I'd be more comfortable with the name being there. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The BBC just confirmed the name, as the BBC is reliable should we not add his name to the article? 149.22.219.132 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No. The suspect is not a public figure, so according to WP:SUSPECT, we cannot add his name to the article until he has been charged, tried, and convicted. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

They literally meet the definition of WP:PUBLICFIGURE…. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That policy page doesn't define "public figure". Moreover, he does meet the definition of a "low-profile individual", which seems to be quite the opposite of a public figure. Bowler the Carmine | talk 21:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It says this literally at the top: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. We have significant reliably sourced statements that all point at him by name. He has achieved notoriety for this shooting long before being named as the suspected shooter. There is no reason whatsoever to exclude the name. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT says we should "seriously consider not including material... that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime", not that we should never include it. For something with this much media attention I think we should include Mangione's name, some background info, say that he was arrested "in connection" with the crime, and note that he hasn't been charged with anything (what NYT does). Considering that his name has already been published in NYT, CNN, ABC, NBC, NPR, Forbes, Axios, BBC, USA Today, Wired, The Independent, CBS, The Times, The Intercept, People, and New York Magazine (all reliable sources), I really don't see a point in leaving him out of the Wikipedia page. – MW_(t•c) 00:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

He’s been arrested and arraigned. Is Wikipedia’s rule that no one pending trial is allowed to be identified? 108.6.22.23 (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma What consensus against the name are you talking about? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

"Consensus" may have been wrong; if so, my apologies. My main concern was that the restored paragraph is essentially a (less-optimally worded) duplicate of the last paragraph in the same section. NapoliRoma (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Smallbones and I were disagreeing on the proper positioning of the paragraph and in the midst of that it seems a duplicate had popped up, one with the name and one without. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep; I didn't mean to get in the way of either the ongoing name or placement issues. NapoliRoma (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Police have confirmed that Luigi Mangione is the suspect who was arrested and multiple reliable outlets (BBC, Reuters, NYT, etc.) have published the name. This is a notable event and at this point Luigi Mangione has become a public figure. I suggest that we say something along the lines of "a person of interest, who police have identified as 29 year old Luigi Mangione, was detained...". Rayanblaq14 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Stupid Wikipedia policies. This is probably why everyone says you are unreliable. You omit information even after everything has been confirmed. 173.80.249.175 (talk) 07:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 1 (Suspect name)

Link to the article: https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/luigi-mangione-5-key-facts-about-person-of-interest-in-brian-thompson-shooting-article-116148607 2600:1702:5225:C010:ACE9:213C:259:9374 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I am ashamed that Wikipedia's article is so terrible. Those who control the article have santitized it so much that the suspect's section of the article is far less detailed that in the news. Usually, it's the other way around because Wikipedians collect info from various sources.

OK, I get it that these controlling editors don't want to put the guy's name in the article. But let there be other information. For example, if we know his school, we still can't identify a specific person.

Do not trash Wikipedia by making the article crap. This is already being done by restricting what is being put in. The Article Controlling Editors just remove good faith edits of others and, in doing so, ruin Wikipedia. Bolding is not shouting per WP:SHOUT. . ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a policy with legal consequences. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SHOUT are policies to be followed when participating on WP talk pages. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am civil and assuming good faith. Please assume good faith and do not falsely accuse. Thank you. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No false accusations were made by me. Thank you for removing the all-caps. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 2 (Suspect name)

Thread retitled from "Include the name of the person of interest".

WP:BLPCRIME does not say we cannot name the person of interest. It says "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime." A reasonable editor may seriously consider not including the name but conclude that the fact that the suspect is named at the top of the home pages of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, and NPR means that Wikipedia should also include that information. --JFHutson (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't provide an argument other than "other people have published the name". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with @ZimZalaBim on this one. We should hold off because while the name of the person of interest is in fact newsworthy it is not necessarily encyclopedic. (WP:NOTNEWS) Middle Mac CJM (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The police released the name of the suspect after the arrest. That is a notable part of the events that have unfolded, and certainly has value in being included in the article. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson#Suspect name Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jfhutson I agree as well... wiki should wait at least until he is charged specifically with the murder... brings to mind Richard Jewell. 108.178.140.254 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But if Richard Jewell was alive and committed the alleged crime NOW in 2024, then even though eventually he might still be cleared as suspect and exonerated, but you still have to create and update the entry, and not necessarily waiting for that long to say be charged specifically with this and that...remember, at first, when a suspect is arrested, the person might be charged with one count, but later on with multiple counts...

Because sometimes if the developments moved in warp speed(like days ago Fall of Damascus and Collapse of Assad's regime), then you don't even have time to really say "wait at least until"...because if you finally get the confirmation later, the development is already on another level, and your confirmation is simply outdated again. Bf0325 (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

it is rather too typical in circumstances like these for there to be a race to include emerging details - in particular an emerging detail that doesn't really change the story. It's just a name at this stage - it's what happened that is important, not the name. It can wait. Apparently he goes by numerous pseudonyms, so what does it really matter just now? It's all a bit reminiscent of people who post "First" in the comments section of popular video sharing channels. There is no rush - all in good time. The identify of the person of interest is positively no secret, and the race to include it here on Wikipedia is all a bit meaningless. The name is probably the most widely shared/published name on the internet at this moment, and it adds nothing to the encyclopaedic quality of the article to be in a race to add it. The article meanwhile can be added to by the inclusion of important, newly emerged details. The suspect's name is just a name - it doesn't alter the facts of what happened/is happening. I wish the editors who are so intent on arguing the toss about whether it's permissible to include a name could focus on tasks that matter in an the encyclopaedic sense instead of battling it out to be the first to add the largely irrelevant detail of a name which the whole world already knows. I get annoyed when editors jump in with WP:DONTDOTHIS or WP:DONTDOTHAT or WP:NOTANEWSPAPER - it's as ridiculous as the Pitch Perfect films where everything is prefixed by ACCA: except those films are pretty funny and the nerdiness is self-effacing humour - but for once the fascination with quoting WP:POLICIES makes sense to me. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the suspected assailant referred to as 'Assailant.' This is disappointing to see in Wikipedia, since we are scrupulous about being fair and not making explicit judgments before he has made been put through a trial.Dogru144 (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Although he was caught red-handed and is clearly as guilty as sin, he deserves due legal process and the presumption of innocence. Am I allowed to make a tongue-in-cheek remark like this provided I don't name any names or have I just landed myself a lifetime block? Being serious - doesn't the article merely talk about the assailant at the moment, as opposed to giving the alleged identity of the assailant? Isn't it kind of obvious that there was an assailant or are you suggesting there is only a suspicion that someone held the gun that fired the bullets that killed Brian Thompson? It's only when someone says "the assailant is suspected to be" that the problem arises. I think the Wikimapedia Foundation is on a safe legal footing to state unequivocally that there was an assailant. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that Mangione has now been charged with murder. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe his name should now be plastered all over the Wikipedia article lol 108.178.140.254 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What does everyone think about starting an RfC (request for comment) to name the suspect, similar to the one that was done at Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German? wizzito | say hello! 06:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea – MW_(t•c) 06:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia became really censored lately, it is what it is. - Karel Bílek (talk). 06:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 3 (Suspect name)

Thread retitled from "The suspect has been charged".

Luigi Mangione has been charged with second-degree murder in New York. Am I correct in saying that this is enough for Mangione's name to be added to the page as a suspect? Jbvann05 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest we start an RfC, given the differing opinions here. wizzito | say hello! 06:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Simply because of how many editors provided arguments against including the name for now, that would probably be a good idea, if only for the sake of putting an end to the debate in a well-defined manner. But the fact that one is needed is pretty pathetic. LVMH11 (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not that unusual - see Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German#RfC: Suspect's name, Talk:Gilgo Beach serial killings/Archive 1#RfC Naming the Suspect, Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings#RfC: Suspect's Name wizzito | say hello! 07:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. Just because a larger number of people make really bad arguments doesn't mean we need to listen to them. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

His name is being widely disseminated in reliable sources. There is no reason to not mention it. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed all over the news. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Cont. 4 (Suspect name)

Thread retitled from "Naming the suspect".

The accused is no longer a "person of interest" and has been formally charged with murder. This means that it should be ok to name him in the article, as all of the world's media has done. Things have moved on since yesterday. ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Please add your thoughts in the above conversation called RfC: Name of suspect. Kingturtle = (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks, I've just seen the RfC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Change reference to anesthesia insurance coverage from Blue Cross Blue Shield Association to Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. 72.80.68.143 (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 13:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Mangione's mugshot in the article yet?

Could it go either in the "Detainment" or "Charges" section? Ddellas (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently not, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania doesn't release works in the public domain. NAADAAN (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

IIRC, new York state / city mugshots are PD, so when the transfer of custody is made a new NY one may be released. Maximilian775 (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Public response section

In my view there's a bit too much content about the reaction of social media users. Regarding social media users specifically, I think it's sufficient to state in the article that (according to sources) many social media users shared their contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system. But does Wikipedia really need to state that "90,000 Facebook users responded with a "Haha" (or "laughing") reaction." In my view this level of content from social media users is not essential for an encyclopedic article as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that reactions like those you have described are in bad taste, and I guess many of them come from people who had never heard of BT prior to his murder. But for me it's an important encyclopaedic detail to note that large numbers of people felt it was appropriate to express contempt for the victim and elation at his murder. It's an important, relevant and somewhat tragic illustration of the current zeitgeist that people are 'comfortable' to apparently celebrate a murder, despite the victim's apparent/alleged role in harming public health in one of the world's most developed/populous nations. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m with Flusa, these are an incredibly

relevant detail - far moreso, I’d argue, than the politician responses. Snokalok (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A better way to do is to acknowledge that, yeah, among some quarters, that alleged suspect(Luigi Mangione) was regarded as folk hero, but we need not include all of that---Even John Dillinger was regarded as folk hero or Robin Hood of sorts back in 1934, but it doesn't change a bit he was still a bank robber and an outlaw anyway. Bf0325 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think Robin Hood was much earlier than 1934. Nottingham and the surrounding woodland areas were already very urbanized by then and there's no way he could have carried out his brand of merry chauvinist guerrilla warfare in the largely undetected way that legend would have us believe. Although it was 1930s England and most folk were rejoicing in the peaceful inter-war period and perhaps too busy enjoying themselves to care about a well-meaning but deadly thug roaming among the trees dressed in green pantyhose. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That sentence that you describe above is fine. Not overly detailed. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The public response is probably the most notable thing about this whole thing. It absolutely should be kept in. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 01:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is notable that this murder is 'celebrated' and defended. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well. The section also has a wide variety of reliable sources, including articles that specifically talk about the apathetic/positive reaction to the killing, not just the killing in general. Cortador (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Time and again we see people mistake the views of internet mobs for widespread public sentiment, and time and again that isn't the case. I agree that some mention of this perverse phenomenon is due (and is covered in numerous RSes), but be careful with the language and avoid any phrasing that might imply these are mainstream views. Remember, it was a good citizen who tipped the police off. These mobs thought the suspect was being protected, and that wasn't the case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you think these are "mainstream views" doesn't matter - whether or not sources state they are does. Cortador (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What if someone thinks they are mainstream views because the sources support that view? There is an issue in qualifying or quantifying "mainstream", but significant news media like BBC are not being shy about reporting the "celebratory" content being posted on social media.

All that aside, it may be useful to realise that people/editors might/will/can substitute "I think that..." for "I think (because I've read sources that back up my thinking) that...".

For example, I think Thompson and his firm sound like rogues - that's my opinion based on reliable sources and data I've read. I'd expect people to jump on the word "opinion" - apparently we're not to have those. But once again, it's reasonable to stop and ask if I'm merely substituting the word "opinion" for "conclusion based on reliable sources".

Anyone following this story must surely have read analysis of the social media reactions - news outlets aren't merely quoting "Bob in Tennessee who posted a 'thumbs up' emoji in response to a post about Thompson's murder. They're discussing thousands of posts, some with hundreds of thousands of 'likes'". It is significant. And it's probably, as far as I can think of, the first time the murder of a civilian has prompted large scale "approval" on social media. It's ugly, it's understandable (which doesn't mean it's proper - it simply means it can be understood why it's happening without approving of it), and I guess it marks another grotty milestone in the evolution of social media.

In conclusion: it would be helpful I think if people avoid the kneejerk reaction of stonewalling reasoned discussion with interjections of "don't think' or "don't express an opinion" - because thoughts and opinions can simply be substitute words for "reasoned judgement" or "evidenced summation".

I think, therefore I am. ^{[citation_needed]}. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (2)

there's a spelling error in one of the images "hostel" needs to be changed to "hotel" Oofman9009 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But, Mangione stayed at a hostel, not a hotel. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: No, hostel is correct, assuming you're referring to the image of the HI New York City Hostel. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

alright my bad O9 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Motive box

Why is the motive box filled out as “justice” and other items when it was previously “unknown” plus those things?

Shouldn’t it “unknown” and other hypotheses like “justice” until the murderer is identified? HorseDonkey (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Public response and interpretation is one thing, but we're supposing the killer's intent when it could otherwise be misdirection. BenjaminKZ _Talk 14:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I changed it back to unknown and left in the possible language. I also took out the "justice" motivation because that language seems very inflammatory and unwarranted. HorseDonkey (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

unwarranted? You mean like how the deaths millions of people was unwarranted? 173.80.213.29 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024 (3)

The words on the bullets are entered wrong in the article. The police reported that the bullets said "deny defend and depose" whereas the wiki says they read differently which is false. This can be verified by reading through the copious amounts of news articles published this past week. 71.90.110.159 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the NBC News source in that section there were two different reports, a second correcting the first (replacing "defend" with "delay"). I have added a sentence explaining this, and also added a quote of the relevant statement from the cited article to the citation. abcasada (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)