Misplaced Pages

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CommunityNotesContributor (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 2 January 2025 (→Why does the name of not occur in this article?: spa tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:27, 2 January 2025 by CommunityNotesContributor (talk | contribs) (→Why does the name of not occur in this article?: spa tags)(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.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 30 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:
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York City Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
ConsensusEditors have formed the following consensus:
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

CloudResearch poll

KTVK (Arizona Family) reported on a CloudResearch poll. KTVK is reliable, but I don't know what to say of the poll. I can't seem to find the poll itself anywhere, and the article doesn't link to it. This is also the only source to report on it. The poll was conducted "Engage AI". I don't know if that could even be considered on here. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

we could attribute it. seems fair, if KTVK is talking about it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Alright Personisinsterest (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't work. KTVK, a reliable source, stated that this poll occurred in their own voice. Attributing a statement of fact from a reliable source is not needed. That's not different from any other statement of fact in our article sourced to a reliable secondary source—for them we also do not attribute. —Alalch E. 11:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Engage is described on the CloudResearch official website: https://www.cloudresearch.com/products/engage/ – Engage turns surveys into dynamic, engaging conversations by leveraging advanced generative AI. The people are real whereas the survey, instead of a questionnaire, is a chatbot conversation. —Alalch E. 11:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change delay deny depose to deny defend depose 2600:6C58:6500:62A:1D17:BAF6:F6C7:4D28 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation

It think we need to make it clear, once and for all, that no one has any idea how often health insurers deny private claims, and that most data available comes from public plans, like Medicare Advantage, which in all likelihood inflate the denial rate. In the background section the article states: "UnitedHealthcare has been widely criticized for its handling of claims. The rate at which post-acute care claims were denied more than doubled between 2020 and 2022." -but when you look at the source, it's clear they got this data from a government report about people on Medicare Advantage. Some context to consider when you edit this stuff is that overtreatment on public plans happens much more frequently, with some estimates indicating as much as 40% of medical treatment on public plans could be considered unnecessary. You are not going to find denial rates on private plans this high because a) overutilization is much less of an issue; and b) the people being covered are younger and more healthier than Medicare recipients. The line should be edited to reflect the actual source, like where they got that rate from.

I would also question how much of this background section is actually "background" pertaining to this particular case. Polling consistently shows that support for the killer is the strongest among age groups that have minimal contact with the healthcare sector, like the 18 -29 cohort. To imply that this social media phenomenon is being driven by people getting Medicare claims denied is just silly. The section also talks about people protesting Optum's PBM business, but Thompson was the CEO of UnitedHealthcare -both owned by UnitedHealth Group, but separate subsidiaries. The killer had no personal connections to this company, and his own notebook states that he only decided to hit insurance back in August of this year (I presume this means he was contemplating other industries). I suspect that as these trials proceed and prosecutors give jurors a reality check, reliable sources will more accurately reflect the context of this case. Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

this is WP:FORUMing to rant about medicare overtreatment and that youth support of luigi mangione is driving social media. please include an actionable, specific edit request. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
It isn't "FORUMing" -it's assuming good faith and providing you with context, rather than accusing you of deliberately misrepresenting a source. Read the quoted statement ("The rate at which post-acute care claims were denied more than doubled between 2020 and 2022") and read what the source says (this was pertaining to people on Medicare Advantage, which represents a small fraction of United's business).
You must be new on this article because most of these issues had been discussed ad nauseum on the archived talk page. That support for Mangione is mainly youth demos (so, not Medicare recipients) is just obvious from the polling -check polling by Emerson, Rasmussen, The Economist, YouGov etc. Familiarize yourself with this case so other editors don't have to write book chapters in talk. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jonathan f1: Be civil. Anyone can edit. EF 18:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Fine, but the line in bold should be corrected to reflect the source. The denial rate cited in the article, which makes it seem like it's for all plans or private plans, is strictly for Medicare Advantage. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Jonathan f1 here. Anyone who has any familiarity with the health sector knows that denial rates are simply not available and anyone who’s pretending they know is just spreading misinformation. I don’t think the points brought up by Jonathan are “FORUM”ing and are actually quite pertinent. Volunteer Marek 00:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Most of the stuff in the Background section isn’t even background but just a WP:COATRACK. Volunteer Marek 00:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Agree on the majority of content which you removed, but you've also removed some statements which are legitimately sourced to articles about the event, exploring the event's background. I have restored those. —Alalch E. 05:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Rasmussen Poll Bias

@Illicit Vellichor you said I reverted the removal of the poll because I had bias against “the elite 1%”? Firstly, that is no reason to revert an edit. Everyone has bias, but that doesn’t matter if the information is reliable and relevant, which it is. Second, I don’t know where you got that I had bias. I admit that I’m progressive in my user page, but I haven’t said anything about the 1%. Third, the information presented would work against my alleged bias. It shows that most people don’t like the man that shot a CEO. I hope we can clear this up and figure out the inclusion of this poll. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, there seems to be some confusion, I do not think you are biased. The Rasmussen poll was removed for bias because of their "elite 1%" website, that's what I was talking about. I see no issue with the NORC poll, if that is the one you are talking about (I saw you have contributed to it). XXI (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh, alright then. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
But also, the Rammussen poll is fine. His polls are used by reliable aggregators and media organizations. Even Misplaced Pages uses him. I’m not aware of the website about the elite 1%, but I don’t think it’s relevant. He’s obviously biased and we know that, but he is reliable. I’m adding it back in. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@Personisinsterest There are plenty of polls available, we do not need one from a biased source. The Elite 1% site outlines the Rasmussen's polls goal of showing that democratic, post-graduate, white liberals are "the root cause of political dysfunction in America." Of course their poll would come to the conclusion that fits their biased opinion. I'm removing the poll, there are five other polls that offer an unbiased perspective on American's thoughts on this event. XXI (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I found the website you're talking about. Yeah, obviously it's biased. Obviously Rasmussen is bias. But it firstly doesn't mention polling, and second, Rasmussen is a reliable source! It is actually highly reputable! We aren't going off our own original research, we're going off reliable sources, and they say he and his polls are reliable. And anyway, there is an RfC going on right now about this subject. You should not remove the poll yet until consensus is reached. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Why would we include an obviously biased source? That goes against Misplaced Pages's mission of presenting facts neutrally. If the poll HAS to be included a note should be included at the start that they are a biased source. Why is this poll so important?
"These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes." Media Bias Fact Check
The poll should not be included until a consensus is reached. XXI (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Please see WP:BIAS WP:BIASED, I've otherwise reverted your edit. It's not about whether you have a good enough argument to continuously remove that content, which I don't believe is the case anyway, but whether you have consensus to do so. Please avoid violating WP:3RR further by removing the content again, thanks. CNC (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I read WP:BIASED, an in-text attribution should be added. There are already multiple polls available with neutral sources, why is it necessary to add one from a biased sources that is no longer reliable because of its bias? Also, Why am I the only editor considered in violation of WP:3RR when the other editor keeps adding the biased poll back? I removed it because of the bias and the person responded back with an inappropriate edit summary. XXI (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Personisinsterest @Toa Nidhiki05 538 dropped Rasmussen Reports because of their bias. "As time passed, though, Rasmussen’s inability to meet the standards set by 538 — and two dubious polls conducted for right-wing organizations — eventually led 538 to make the change this week." Washington Post Article XXI (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Rasmussen Reports and Scott Rasmussen are not the same thing. He left that polling company over a decade ago, well before their slide into insanity. Toa Nidhiki05 18:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Then why is he quoted on the Elite 1% website? "The Elite 1% wield a tremendous amount of institutional power but are wildly out of touch with the nation they want to rule." Scott Rasmussen-RMG RESEARCH, INC XXI (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Napolitan News poll

Should we include the Napolitan News poll? I think we should. As discussed previously, some of Rammussen’s work is bias, but he is still a respected pollster. This poll seems fine. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

As said before in Archive 6: “The polling is by Scott Rasmussen, a right-wing albeit widely used pollster in polling aggregates. (Nate Silver's models, DecisionDeskHQ, CNN, and others all use him; the notable exception is that post-Nate Silver 538 notably doesn't.) I don't see the problem with sourcing it with attribution. His polls are widely used on Misplaced Pages.” Personisinsterest (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
This was discussed a while ago and I thought it was already in the article. Have any secondary RSes reported this poll? Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
There is one semi-reliable source. Washington/Higher Ground Times. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Casings’ Inscriptions

The authorities corrected the initial information about the words on the spent casings. This is evident from the sources already in the article. This was previously discussed: Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 5#Shell casing words do not match source—Alalch E. 22:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Authorities have reported the shell casings were inscribed with “defend”, “deny”, “depose” rather than “delay”, “deny”, “depose” as is incorrectly stated in this article. I just wanted to put this here in hopes that someone with authority to edit can correctly amend the article. Avecurch (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The neutrality of this passage has been disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:C305:78DF:A15E:4978:BFD9:BB1 (talk) 07:59, 30 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.

RfC: Napolitan News and Center for Strategic Politics polls

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we include the polls from Napolitan News (Rasmussen) and the Center for Strategic Politics? There has already been lukewarm consensus for them, but I want to get it officially and prevent disputes and further reverts. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The main arguments in opposition were previously: that Napolitan News is run by Rasmussen, who has a right-wing bias and the poll wasn't reported much; and that CFSP is very new and wasn't reported much. Arguments in support were: Rasmussen can be bias but is widely seen as reliable; and that CFSP was reported by reliable sources and provides methodology. Personisinsterest (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Where is it found that Rasmussen is reliable despite their clear bias? XXI (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Poll

  • Include Scott Rasmussen/RMG are reliable pollsters. They have an above-average grade from 538, and have a solid track record. There is no evidence that bias impacted this poll. It is worth noting: this poll is from Scott Rasmussen, NOT Rasmussen Reports, which he departed over a decade ago and has since become a festering sinkhole of right-wing paranoia. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which poll is this exactly? Rasmussen is already mentioned in the polling section. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Scott Rasmussen is quoted on the Elite 1% site and is still affiliated with the Napolitan Institute which conducted this poll with clear bias. XXI (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    @Personisinsterest@Toa Nidhiki05"These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes." Media Bias Fact Check If we are going to include this poll there should be a note at the start that the Rasmussen is a right-leaning source with bias so readers can be aware. XXI (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Personisinsterest @Toa Nidhiki05 538 dropped Rasmussen Reports because of their bias. "As time passed, though, Rasmussen’s inability to meet the standards set by 538 — and two dubious polls conducted for right-wing organizations — eventually led 538 to make the change this week." Washington Post Article XXI (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree, Rasmussen Reports isn’t reliable. However, this isn’t a poll from Rasmussen Reports, and Scott Rasmussen left there well over a decade ago. Please do some research next time. Toa Nidhiki05 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I did do my research which is why I know this poll is biased, please do yours. The poll is on The Napolitan News Service which says "Field work for the survey was conducted by RMG Research, Inc.". RMG Research Inc. and Scott Rasmussen are quoted on the Elite 1% site which is a project of the Napolitan Institute and has tremendous bias and currently ranks 63rd on 538's pollster ratings. XXI (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
63rd out of hundreds. Last I checked, it’s either in the low first or high second quartiles. Toa Nidhiki05 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Close WP:BADRFC: Non-neutral opening statement and a WP:TRAINWRECK. There has not been a lukewarm consensus to include the Center for Strategic Politics poll. That is an objectively false statement embedded in the first sentence of this RfC attempt. Those who have been advocating including the Center for Strategic Politics poll have failed to do so, and the only apparent existent consensus would be a consensus not to include it, seeing how it has not been included for weeks after attempts to do so, and how including it has been strongly contested in Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 6#Polls: Americans have overwhelmingly negative views of the killing and in Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson/Archive 5#Lead changes (look for "Miami Herald"). There has been somewhat of a consensus, at least an implicit one, to include the Scott Rasmussen/RMG poll, which has been included for weeks now. Therefore, the only change described here is to include the Center for Strategic Politics poll, and this RfC tries to piggyback this already strongly contested idea on the barely controversial issue (for which there is already implicit consensus) of keeping the Scott Rasmussen/RMG poll.(if this is not closed as a bad RfC) Do not include the Center for Strategic Politics poll for reasons stated in the archived discussions I have linked to above. No comment on the Scott Rasmussen/RMG poll.—Alalch E. 04:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be included because the conclusion the poll came to aligns with the Elite 1% Website Project mission. There are five other polls included which offer insight. Scott Rasmussen is quoted on the Elite 1% website so it seems he is still affiliated with Rasmussen and the right-wing bias which makes the poll tainted. XXI (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Close. Agree with Alalch E. The issue in question, as well as the whole subject of the killing, is evidently highly controversial and we need to proceed quite carefully on the article's structuring, including the mention of polls. Redo. -The Gnome (talk) 13:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Who anointed Ken Klippenstein as a one-man reliable source?

I spot 2 instances in the section on 'media outlets' where Klippenstein is cited, and in fact his opinion takes up most of that relatively brief section. Klippenstein is a self-styled "independent journalist," meaning nothing he is publishing goes through any sort of editorial review. Given that he was previously employed by organizations like "The Young Turks," it is unclear if he has ever been employed as a serious journalist. This section is using Klippenstein's self-published pieces to attack the journalism of reliable sources like the NY Times and CNN (which, unlike Klippenstein, are widely cited throughout this encyclopedia).

You might also want to consider what his own bio says about him: "Klippenstein has a history of pranking unknowing targets on Twitter," and "After being retweeted by Gaetz, Klippenstein changed his display name on Twitter to be "matt gaetz is a pedo". No indication this guy is or ever was a serious journalist. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up again. We should avoid personal news blogs as sources whenever possible. See this conversation from 10 days ago: Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson/Archive_5#Ken_Klippenstein's_claims. Kingturtle = (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Someone in that talk claimed "he's generally a reliable source." On what grounds? Seems like he'd be a 'reliable source' for RationalWiki (that is, a bias-confirmed source), but can't wrap my mind around him being cited here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Do you want to start a thread about Ken Klippenstein over at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? There's currently a thread about another (unrelated) journalist (Jeff Sneider / The InSneider), so it'd be interesting to see what they think about Klippenstein. Some1 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll do it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Might have to wait a while for a response: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Killing_of_Brian_Thompson Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I made the section header a bit more specific, hope you don't mind. Full thread: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson Some1 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Okay, no wonder why my link wasn't working. Yeah, that's better, thanks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
NYT and CNN are not beyond reproach. They are still corporate media with well-known blindspots (particularly their foreign policy coverage). Are mega-corps with CEOs less biased than a reporter who doesn't answer to a CEO? Not always. Catboy69 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
they are better than SPS, especially for WP:BLPSPS. We can def use other sources besides "corporate media", but we really shouldn't be using Klippenstein's blog. We could probably use any piece by Klippenstein posted on a non SPS platform. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
it isn't a question of bias. NYT and CNN have larger teams, including fact-checkers, editors, and specialized reporters, which helps ensure accuracy and thoroughness. They have stricter editorial standards. For stories Klippenstein publishes on his own, there is zero editorial oversight. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
That's not entirely true. Klippenstein does have an editor, William Arkin, who like him has a history in the mainstream press. You could argue that his work is still less rigorous than the NYT etc, but I don't think it's equivalent to just any random individual's blog post either. Unbandito (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
fair enough, zero oversight was an exaggeration. But I hope you can understand the difference in oversight and editorial standards. Kingturtle = (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
And unsurprisingly Arkin has a grudge against MSM, as his own bio indicates. Arkin editing Klippenstein is not remotely close to the editorial process at major news outlets. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of anti-corporate bias that's causing issues on this article:
"Are mega-corps with CEOs less biased than a reporter who doesn't answer to a CEO?"
They're not only less biased, they're also a thousand times more reliable. News organizations that have multiple levels of corporate oversight and editorial review will always be more trustworthy than an independent blogger who's blindsided by his ideology. Here's a simple test to determine who's more biased: which side of politics do you think organizations like NYT and CNN favor more, the left or the right? Considering they have critics on both sides these days, seems like there's something in there for everyone to hate, which is exactly what you'd expect from more objective journalism. Now compare to Klippenstein: which crowd does he primarily write for? Klipp's reliably one way without fail, and his entire career was spent working for ultra-partisan outlets. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Besides the enlightened centrism, corporate media is incredibly biased on certain topics because of its corporate oversight, not despite it. That's why NYT and CNN got so much flak for saying the American economy was amazing from the right and the left-- it wasn't true. Yes, editorial review is important, but on topics such as the ethics of CEOs, corporate media is consistently biased. You could make an argument that many of these journalists have spent their careers writing for one side (corporations) and working for ultra-capitalist outlets. Both have bias. Catboy69 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It isn't "enlightened centrism" -it's pointing out the fact that, however often "corporate media" gets it wrong, multiply that number by 100 for alt-media and independent bloggers with anti-MSM bias. And I don't see what the economy has to do with any of this -I'm actually one of few Democrats who were criticizing the media for selectively presenting economic data and overhyping the Biden economy before the election, while ignoring massive problems with prices/costs.
It isn't about not trusting corporate media (which you shouldn't), it's about people who don't trust corporate media but then decide to get all their info from a guy ranting on a blog or Youtube channel. And your point about MSM having a pro-CEO bias is your opinion, and ultimately a conspiracy theory. It isn't at all normal for someone to be murdered and then the initial reaction to that is a critique of the industry he works for. Imagining that playing out at a funeral. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not a conspiracy theory. It's capitalism. It is also the main flaw with mainstream media, which I suppose you also have some issues with. Also, most people aren't CEOs in an industry that profits off of people's deaths. You are correct that it isn't normal for Americans to have class consciousness, but it's happening this time. Catboy69 (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
All of this is approaching WP:NOTFORUM but I will say this: when it comes to meta-journalism - IE: journalism about journalism Klippenstein is an expert who has been previously published in WP:RS. He is also self-published. that means that WP:EXPERTSPS applies which means he can be used with caution... but not for anything directly to do with a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you 🙏 Catboy69 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Alleging that large media outlets favor CEOs and as a result deliberately mislead the public sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. According to Merriam-Webster, a conspiracy theory is a theory "that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators." Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you take issue with the wording or with the citation? Would you have a problem with Misplaced Pages citing these statements at all, or do you think it would be okay if we left them as "Klippenstein Some have criticized media outlets for..." guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I think that for the first bit about the manifesto, it could be included with attribution to the LA Times which references Klippenstein's piece. As to the stuff about not showing the suspect's face and the NYPD report -I say get rid of it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Update: In case anyone still thinks Klippenstein's an objective journalist, I'm submitting his latest rant that he kicked in the New Year with. I'd again urge editors not to over-amplify this guy's conspiracy theories about the media and the NYPD. He's referenced in a LA Times piece, and I don't have a problem with the section covering that. But his other attacks on media need to go. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this is pretty beyond the pale. I've removed it. We should focus on reliable, important voices here - not random bloggers like Klippenstein, who has a clear axe to grind against mainstream outlets per the source above. While his publication of the manifesto is noteworthy, his personal views on the matter are self-published and not particularly noteworthy. Toa Nidhiki05 05:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Not much has been removed. The bit about the NYT not showing the suspect's face, and the last couple lines about the NYPD are still there. The first is sourced to Klippenstein, of course, and the Washington Times and hyperallergic.com. The consensus on WT is: "The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons. A majority of editors regard The Washington Times as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science," and hyperallergic.com might be credible for art-related subjects but not this.
The second part about the NYPD is sourced only to Klippenstein, and is a rant against a report published by the NYPD's counterterrorism unit. Under no other circumstance would this content be permitted -self-published, purely opinion, clearly biased. Then you'd also have to try and defend 3 mentions of Klippenstein in an 8 line section. He isn't a counterterrorism authority, a professor of journalistic ethics, or a journalist with any history of crime reporting. The one common thread in all of his articles is that they are anti-MSM hit pieces, which means we would want his claims to be substantiated by high-quality RSes. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I will also caution you that referring to Klippenstein's work as "conspiracy theories" is also not playing well with our WP:BLP policy which, I assure you, extends to article talk pages. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The articles in question not only satisfy the basic definition of a conspiracy theory, but his own words say as much:
"When UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was gunned down in Manhattan, every self-appointed moral arbiter from politicians to major media outlets conspired to forbid the public from engaging in debate about how inhumane our healthcare system is.".
They "conspired"? Really? Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Agree with those who've opined that Ken Klippenstein's self-published blog should not be used as a source in this article. Coretheapple (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Per the conversation at WP:RS/N the actual policy you're looking for is WP:EXPERTSPS. Simonm223 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
    Right, and he needs to be qualified as an expert in the relevant field for which he's cited. Saying he was employed as a "journalist" is as vague as calling someone a "scientist" -journalist of what? There are science journalists, art & culture, crime reporters, sports reporters. Obviously we don't want to cite a sports journalist here, even though an art-based website is currently being used in an attempt to substantiate Klippenstein in this article. Is Klippenstein a counterterrorism expert? No. An ethicist? No. A crime reporter? No. A health economist? No.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Why does the name of not occur in this article?

The name does not appear anywhere on this article nor in anywhere in the talk section. Why is that and should it maybe change?

got into legal trouble for telling a health insurance employee the phrase "deny defend depose". That phrase links the case with the events described in this article. I also remember vaguely some quote describing that her treatment by the legal system is party based on "the state of the nation right now", providing a second link to the events discussed in this article. In general I suspect many observers of this story will be looking at the treatment of by the legal system as part of the discussions sparked by the events described in this article. So I think that the case is a well-deserved part of an 'Aftermath' section in this article, behind the section on 'Reactions'.

I am sorry if I appear unnuanced or vague here. I do not have sources prepared. It just occurred to me and I am now asking. 83.87.37.8 (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC) — 83.87.37.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC).

Her name is not included per WP:BLPNAME, which states Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event... When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated ... it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.... Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. ... The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of ... other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. Some1 (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
"A week after the shooting, a woman in Florida was arrested and charged with "threats to conduct a mass shooting or act of terrorism" after allegedly saying "Delay, deny, depose, you people are next" to representatives of Blue Cross Blue Shield after her claim was denied. The judge set her bail at $100,000, citing "the status of our country at this point"."
Ah I see it now here in the "Other" subsection under reactions.
I do think it is relevant to be keeping an eye on similarities with Mangioni in their case, as this story continues. For example, this article talks about legal expenses fundraisers surviving only on some platforms, and I thought a similar thing was going on here as well.... but I now see on the GoFundMe of that the hiccup was of a different nature. My two cents. 83.87.37.8 (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC) — 83.87.37.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC).
Misplaced Pages respects the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Naming someone accused but not convicted could imply guilt prematurely and violate their rights. Naming an accused individual could cause significant harm to their reputation, especially if they are later found not guilty. Misplaced Pages avoids unnecessary harm by being cautious with sensitive information. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: