Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CloudResearch poll

[edit]

KTVK (Arizona Family) reported[1][2] 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)[reply]

we could attribute it. seems fair, if KTVK is talking about it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright Personisinsterest (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2024

[edit]

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

Misinformation

[edit]

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[4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Jonathan f1: Be civil. Anyone can edit. EF5 18:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Rasmussen Poll Bias

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oh, alright then. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But also, the Rammussen poll is fine. His polls are used by reliable aggregators and media organizations. Even Wikipedia 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why would we include an obviously biased source? That goes against Wikipedia'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)[reply]
Please see WP:BIAS WP:BIASED, I've otherwise reverted your edit.[5] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Napolitan News poll

[edit]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.” Personisinsterest (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is one semi-reliable source. Washington/Higher Ground Times. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casings’ Inscriptions

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Where is it found that Rasmussen is reliable despite their clear bias? XXI (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

[edit]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you want to start a thread about Ken Klippenstein over at Wikipedia: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)[reply]
Yeah, I'll do it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might have to wait a while for a response: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Killing_of_Brian_Thompson Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the section header a bit more specific,[6] hope you don't mind. Full thread: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ken Klippenstein on Killing of Brian Thompson Some1 (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no wonder why my link wasn't working. Yeah, that's better, thanks. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you 🙏 Catboy69 (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you take issue with the wording or with the citation? Would you have a problem with Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[7]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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."[8].
They "conspired"? Really? Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, they don't. You do understand that the verb "conspire" has more than one meaning, right? A common meaning is "to act towards the same end," as in "The big question is whether broader trends will conspire to drive rates back down" and "Any flying object, from a bee to a bird to a plane, has two major forces conspiring against it" (gravity and drag). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When looked at in conjunction with his endless attacks on media, and the claim itself, which is absurd, one does not suspect he was applying an alternative meaning. Why would major media outlets be "acting towards the same end" to prevent a public debate about healthcare? What sense does that even make outside the conspiracy world where media and corporations regularly collude with each other? If I felt like wasting money, I'd pay for a subscription and ask him in his own comments to clarify, but I don't feel like wasting money now. I retracted my remark about him pushing conspiracies. and the comment you're responding to here was something I wrote before retraction. Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
one does not suspect he was applying an alternative meaning I suggest that you use "I" rather than "one," as you're describing your personal judgement about this, not describing the average person's judgement (which we do not know), and it's better not to conflate the two. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just think that if you sat this guy down alone, perhaps over a couple of drinks, and asked him to what extent he believes big corporations and media collude to control what information the public consumes, you're going to get a lot more out of him than the definition you've supplied. But I've retracted my previous remark about him pushing conspiracies, because I cannot support this with RSes, and any attempt to interpret his previous work would fall under OR. Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out of hand. With the addition of new content, the section explaining Ken Klippenstein's views in-depth is now larger than the entirety of the academic commentary section. It's clear there's intense disagreement on whether his views matter - but can we all agree this amount of content on his views, even if he is reliable (which I don't think he is), is simply far too much? Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with removing the last sentence about the NYT and them (allegedly) telling their staff to dial back on showing photographs containing Mangione's face. But the rest of the paragraph/the three sentences regarding Klippenstein and the alleged manifesto are DUE, imo. Some1 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that, while we can use self-published experts, we cannot for anything about a BLP. His manifesto is a gray area there. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the content that Toa Nidhiki05 and Jonathan f1 are disputing are in the Killing_of_Brian_Thompson#Other section of the article; copy and pasting it here so others can follow along:
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who obtained and published the full text of Mangione's alleged manifesto on his Substack, stated that numerous major media outlets refused to publish the manifesto despite being in possession of it, writing "My queries to The New York Times, CNN and ABC to explain their rationale for withholding the manifesto, while gladly quoting from it selectively, have not been answered."[1][2] In an interview with Democracy Now!, Klippenstein blamed paternalistic attitudes in corporate media and the possibility of alienating law enforcement sources for the reluctance to publish the alleged manifesto's full text. Klippenstein also said he spoke to rank and file healthcare workers who expressed sympathy with the anger the public expressed at the health insurance industry, and criticized The New York Times and Washington Post for publishing stories that claimed that healthcare workers felt alienated by the public's response.[3][4] Klippenstein also alleged that The New York Times directed their staff to "dial back" on showing photographs containing Mangione's face.[5][6][undue weight? – discuss]
  1. ^ "'It Had to Be Done': Luigi Mangione Manifesto Revealed | Common Dreams". www.commondreams.org. Retrieved 4 January 2025.
  2. ^ Klippenstein, Ken. "Exclusive: Luigi's Manifesto". www.kenklippenstein.com.
  3. ^ "Reporter Ken Klippenstein on Publishing Luigi Mangione Manifesto & Internal UnitedHealth PR Memos". Democracy Now!. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  4. ^ Gilmour, David (16 December 2024). "Ken Klippenstein Slams Media Refusal To Publish CEO Killing Suspect's Manifesto: 'Paternalism At Its Worst!'". Mediaite.
  5. ^ Klippenstein, Ken (December 11, 2024). "NY Times Doesn't Want You to See Shooter's Face". kenklippenstein.com. Retrieved December 15, 2024.
  6. ^ Farfan, Isa (December 18, 2024). "NYT Reportedly Sought to "Dial Back" Luigi Mangione Photos". hyperallergic.com. Hyperallergic. Retrieved 31 December 2024.
IMO, the last sentence regarding the NYT can be removed since it seems a bit out of place in that paragraph, but I believe the rest of the paragraph is fine (though the first sentence could use a bit of trimming). IIRC, he was the first (and only?) journalist to publish the alleged manifesto in full, so his rationale for publishing the text is noteworthy and relevant to the article. Thoughts? Some1 (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Klippenstein's publication of the manifesto's full text (currently citation 191) should be treated as a breaking investigative journalism work, which I suppose would fall under the EXPERTSPS category if a policy justification is required. Policy aside, I think excluding the link to the full manifesto does a clear disservice to the article. I don't see any policy based justification for removing the Democracy Now! material unless someone wants to hold a separate RFC on them.
The last sentence is a bit more of a gray area, although there is a secondary source supporting the allegation self-published by Klippenstein. I think the principle of due weight is being misapplied here however, as there is no conflict between Klippenstein's view and an opposing one on the page, or any criticism of Klippenstein's work at present. This makes it challenging to determine the due weight of his views, except through the unproven, unsourced assertion that they are fringe, that he is a "rando" or somehow irrelevant. I think when he, the publisher of the manifesto, is assessed not just as a source but as a subject in the story we are trying to capture here, his perspective clearly has some relevance to the article. Given that the material currently on the page is essentially the shortest possible summary sentences that capture his argument in full, I think a better way to balance the section would be to seek criticism or refutation of Klippenstein's arguments in other sources. If a number of sources can be found who oppose Klippenstein's interpretation of events, we can have a more productive conversation about how to balance those views.
I'm also open to the idea that there might be a better place or subheading for this material, but I'm not sure what that would be.Unbandito (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223, elaborating on the "gray areas," I think that there are 3 "topics" at play here: Klippenstein publishing the full letter,Klippenstein publishing part of the police report, and Klippenstein's criticism of MSM reporting. Of these, I'd say that the first two are gray areas, and the first probably more than the second. There's a non-SPS for the first, so no BLP vio there, but possibly for the second, since Klippenstein is the only source. I actually don't consider the third to be a gray area; I think it's really about criticism of the MSM and not about Mangione, and that Klippenstein can be used as a source. For me, the third is more of a DUE question − whether to include it, and if so, how much text to devote to it. If there is no consensus after discussion, we could ask at BLPN. It may also be worth asking at WT:BLP whether a sentence should be added to make clear that sometimes there's content that's connected to a living person but could be argued to not be about the person themself (e.g., it's about a historic event that effected the person, it's about a product designed by the person, it's about ideas they espouse − where they're part of a larger group espousing them). Sometimes that content is far enough away from the person that BLP is not in play (as I'd argue is the case for the historic event itself, though not for the personal effect), and other times it's a gray area and can be discussed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally concur with this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than Thompson, the content in question would certainly have a personal effect on living people, several in fact. I'm sure the NYPD counterterrorism unit would be wondering why "independent journalist" Ken Klippenstein is featured in an encyclopedia to criticize one of their reports. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me which content you're referring to by "the content in question." Put differently, I listed three topics, and I don't know whether you're referring to one, two, or all three as having "in question" WP content (and if it's one or two, which one or two).
As a policy, BLP does not hinge on whether WP content has "a personal effect" on someone, but on whether the WP content is "about living persons" (or recently deceased). There is no WP content about any person in the NYPD counterterrorism unit, and the unit itself would likely fall under BLPGROUP; the only WP content is about the unit's report. I think it's a gray area whether "The intelligence report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom the bureau labeled as 'extremists'" is a BLP violation for the part about Mangione. If it's not resolved through discussion here, someone can post a query at the BLPN. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only were they labeled extremists by the NYPD, but Klippenstein's own source uses that word to describe supporters of the killer. He only quoted that security firm because their opinion is that the risk of future attacks on CEOs or executives will likely remain low, which is not unreasonable. But to use that to call the NYPD's report "nonsense"?
Even if it's not a BLP issue, even if you think Klippenstein's a reliable source in and of himself, that content about the NYPD is undue, and in fact it's already been removed and replaced with other MSM criticism. The only thing that warrants mention in that section is Klippenstein's reporting on the manifesto, and only because that's also been picked up by the LA Times. All that other stuff should go, and the LA Times should be cited alongside Klippenstein rather than Common Dreams. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is the WP text, not everything Klippenstein wrote. that content about the NYPD is undue, and in fact it's already been removed and replaced with other MSM criticism "The intelligence report focused on Mangione's motive and people who express sympathy for him, whom the bureau labeled as 'extremists'" still appears in the article, sourced to Klippenstein. I don't find that sentence undue. the LA Times should be cited alongside Klippenstein It already is. As for the paragraph under "Other," I think it should be condensed to a sentence along the lines of "Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein, who obtained and published the full text of Mangione's manifesto on his Substack, criticized several major media outlets for refusing to publish the full manifesto despite having the full text and selectively quoting from it, and also criticized The New York Times and Washington Post for publishing stories claiming that healthcare workers felt alienated by the public's response, when his own interviews of healthcare workers indicated that they expressed sympathy with the public's anger at the health insurance industry." FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the article is it? I'm not seeing it in the relevant section, so was it moved? There is no mention of "extremists" in that section, and it is not odd that the NYPD labeled supporters of someone charged with terrorism as "extremists". What else would they call them and what value is this to readers?
I don't know which section we're looking at, but the one that's been tagged and mentions Klippenstein (now called "Other") does not mention anything about extremists, has been expanded to include more Klippenstein-sourced content, and it is Common Dreams, not LA Times, cited alongside Klippenstein's substack after the first line (citations are # 190 & 191). Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you didn't just do a text search to find what you wanted, but the text about extremists is at the end of the Possible motives section, and the LA Times ref is at the end of the first sentence in Handwritten letter. The text in Other is what I suggested could be shortened to a single sentence. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support shortening the paragraph to a single sentence (such as the one that you wrote) instead of removing it altogether. Some1 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, because I didn't think disputed content would be moved to a different section, only to expand the original section with more questionable content. This is getting out of hand. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, if a trim is determined to be necessary, I'd prefer getting rid of the segment on the healthcare workers' opinions over Klippenstein's analysis of why the media chose not to publish. Unbandito (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a better way to balance the section would be to seek criticism or refutation of Klippenstein's arguments in other sources This is a good idea. Maybe keep the NYT sentence that I had suggest removing and instead expand on it, as citation 194 also says: The Times justification, according to the chat, is that photographs and words might have the effect of "amplifying the crime and inspiring others," as [NYT] reporter Andy Newman said.. I think that can be used as a counterpoint to balance things out. Some1 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are some people here, not necessarily you, who are adamant about getting Klippenstein's views all up in this section, and are setting the bar on what's reliable/noteworthy/expertise as low as possible. Now that the section's been expanded to include more one-sided commentary from Klippenstein, we have two new sources, Common Dreams and Democracy Now!, to deal with. Currently, there is no consensus on the reliability of either source, but certainly agreement that they're both highly partisan and shouldn't be used without attribution. The problem here is that we are dealing with a BLP and the content in question derives from a self-published source. These two sources, Common and Democracy, are not going to suffice here.
And now that we have more content slanting the section towards Klippenstein's views, it is no longer just a question of source reliability and weight, but NPOV issues are raising as well. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partisanship is not relevant to reliability at all. Period. That's a question of accuracy of reporting, independence of editors, and willingness to appropriately correct errors when they occur only. That being said I have some doubts about Democracy Now! being particularly good about those items. Simonm223 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying partisanship implies unreliable, but that the absence of any consensus on these two sources stems directly from the question of whether their highly partisan nature affects their standards of journalism. And in any event, it is clear that most editors feel sources like Democracy Now should be used with caution, if at all. This is an issue here, since we've got self-published content in a BLP, and no high-quality sources referencing it. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say that most editors feel sources like Democracy Now should be used with caution, if at all but that's not really the case. Democracy Now hasn't been discussed on the RSN since 2013, over 10 years ago and at a time when to my understanding the noticeboard functioned very differently from today. Keeping in mind that the Perennial Sources Board is a list of planes with holes in them, the lack of recent discussion on Democracy Now despite its 2,000+ citations on-wiki is not a strong argument for its unreliability. Its use on-wiki has apparently been so uncontroversial/non-disruptive that no discussion has been needed. Hence why another RFC is needed if you want to challenge the use of Democracy Now as a source.
I'm not seeing the due argument here either. In a lower comment, Toa says Klippenstein's view on the media isn't notable -- compared to what? David Kaczynski? Fact is, the media's refusal to publish the manifesto is part of the story of the manifesto's publication. Our job is to cover all significant views, and Klippenstein's is one significant view that was published by secondary sources.
I think what I'm seeing some clear agreement on is balancing Klippenstein's perspective with anything the outlets he criticized or any others have to say about the controversy. I think we can go ahead and move forward with that. Unbandito (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear on my end as well: I think his publication of the manifesto is notable. What I don't think is notable is his personal views on the mainstream media (shocker - independent left-wing journalist believes mainstream media is bad!). He's not a subject matter expert, and should not be treated as such. Clear example of WP:SPS. Toa Nidhiki05 21:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And also to be clear -I fully agree with Toa on this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add -Some1's proposal to balance things out is also needed. The justification given by the Times not to publish the full manifesto is perfectly reasonable and should be included. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also open to the idea that there might be a better place or subheading for this material, but I'm not sure what that would be. We now have a Business Insider article [9] (non-paywall link [10]) asserting that social platforms are cracking down on "pro-Luigi" content. BI is yellow on WP:RSP (WP:BUSINESSINSIDER) so I'm not sure about its usability on this article. But this relates back to the media outlets not wanting to post the alleged manifesto in full; NYT allegedly wanting their staff to dial back on photographs showing Mangione's face; Ken Klippenstein's comments; the current sentence in the article about Engadget/Reddit content moderation. I'm not sure what the best subheading that encompasses all of this would be either. Some1 (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well this has clearly been shaping up to be a "media criticism" section so that's a possible title. Or maybe "Ken Klippenstein's Criticism of Media" since it's almost entirely his opinion. Ken's accusing legacy media of paternalism, but the editors at these outlets are observing an outpouring of online support for the suspect, and are hesitant about publishing anything that might inspire another attack. There is nothing sinister going on there.
The reason why Ken objects to how the media's reacted to Mangione's sympathizers, and the NYPD's labeling of Mangione sympathizers as "extremists," is because most, if not all, of his readers fall under this category. Which is also why we cannot have a full section with just his opinion, assuming you even believe he's a reliable source by himself (which I don't). Jonathan f1 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We get it. You don't like Klippenstein as a source. Your objection has been noted. How about you let it rest unless you have something new to say. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's enough. I've not seen any arguments he's somehow reliable, either - and no, writing for The Intercept doesn't count. His substance is an WP:SPS, his own writings aren't independently noteworthy, and his personal opinions on the media (shocker - as an independent writer who formerly wrote for counter-cultural left-wing websites, he doesn't like the mainstream media) aren't noteworthy at all. We shouldn't include them. Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't writing for The Intercept and The Nation count? As I noted on the RSN, he's also seen as reliable by other journalists (e.g., this Columbia Journalism Review interview; if the CJR happens to focus on someone who's unreliable, I think they say so, as here). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To use Toa's term, Klippenstein operates within that "counter-culture left-wing" genre (think Michael Moore), much of his writing consists of cherry-picked information in order to push a narrative -it's low-quality stuff. Even if you think his self-publishing is reliable because he's reliable, it's hard to defend 3 separate mentions in one paragraph that takes up most of the section. Of the 100s of media reactions, there is nothing particularly significant about a partisan on substack criticizing MSM. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to hear @Toa Nidhiki05's answer, and your own answer is non-responsive to my actual question. You present no evidence of "cherry-picked information in order to push a narrative," and I'm not really interested in opinion without evidence. I already suggested shortening the paragraph to a sentence, so take that up with someone else. If you think there's other discussion of the media response that should be introduced for NPOV, introduce it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you probably know, FactOrOpinion, interviews are primary sources. Being interviewed by someone isn't a demonstration of expertise. Publishing large amounts of primarily partisan drivel for low-quality, partisan news outlets is not enough to take up a larger chunk of this page than the entirety of the academic analysis section. Toa Nidhiki05 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my actual question. Here it is again: Why doesn't writing for The Intercept and The Nation count when assessing whether Klippenstein's a reliable source? RSP shows that the WP community considers The Intercept and The Nation to be generally reliable. I wasn't asking about whether they're partisan (I assume that you understand the difference between bias and reliability, but if not, I suggest that you (re)read WP:BIASED). Re: Being interviewed by someone isn't a demonstration of expertise, it's not just being interviewed by "someone." It's the Columbia Journalism Review, whose entire focus is the analysis of journalism itself, choosing to interview a journalist they describe as "one of the most fearless reporters of the Trump era." So yes, it's an indication of expertise and reliability. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an indication that he's a journalist, which no one is denying. Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously believe that the CJR sometimes chooses to interview unreliable journalists? If so, I suggest that you learn more about the CJR. If not, why imply it? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is right in one of the articles under scrutiny. This is what the NYPD's counterterrorism report said:
"Based on observed initial online reactions to the shooting, including celebrations of the killing of a health insurance executive and encouragement of targeting leaders across industries, there is a risk that a wide range of extremists may view Mangione as a martyr and an example to follow."
Here's how Klippenstein responds:
"The idea that angry social media posts amount to the beginnings of a violent insurgency against corporate executives is nonsense. Security experts have said as much, albeit gingerly. Private security intelligence firm Dragonfly assessed in a recent report that “we strongly doubt that further similar attacks are imminent.”[11]
He takes some liberties in characterizing what the NYPD report actually said (insurgency?), links a report by a private security firm as a rebuttal, and calls the NYPD findings "nonsense." Dragonfly's assessment is solely their opinion, and not one other private firms seem to agree with. Here's a similar report by another firm Global Guardian:
"Threats—physical as well as digital—to CEOs, their employees, and their businesses in the United States have grown exponentially over the past few years," and "The threats to executives, their employees, and their companies have manifested as both physical and digital—at times crossing over. We are, today, in uncharted territory."[12]
Global Guardian also cites independent reports, by another private firm and the FBI, corroborating their findings, and all of this literature seems consistent with the NYPD report.
So, if not cherry-picking what else do you call an independent journalist selectively presenting security reports to push a narrative? This is low-quality reporting, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick follow-up: here's Harvard Business Review citing Global Guadian on the risk of violence against executives[13]. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He clearly didn't cherrypick from the NYPD report. He literally says "Here’s a copy of the document so you can decide for yourself what you think." Nor have you presented evidence of him cherrypicking in his quote from Dragonfly. Your Global Guardian link is about threats, not actual attacks, and it's also from 2021. The NYPD report and the Dragonfly statement are both about actual attacks: "there is a risk that a wide range of extremists may view Mangione as a martyr and an example to follow" (Mangione didn't threaten Thompson, he killed him, and that's the example they're talking about), "Attacks on business leaders will probably remain extremely rare in the US and globally in the coming years" (attacks, not threats, as would be even more obvious if you read their entire assessment, which Klippenstein linked to). Your HBR article doesn't suggest that Dragonfly is wrong either. It even says "'Companies have a very hard time understanding low likelihood, high-consequence risk,' says James Hamilton, creator of the FBI Close Protection School and Founder of Hamilton Security Group" (emphasis added). But at least you tried to present some evidence this time. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Klippenstein's understanding of the Dragonfly report isn't accurate. It said there probably wouldn't be killings, but there would likely be other types of violent actions, including swatting. This makes his rant here, where he bemoans how anyone could be concerned about violence, ridiculous - he selectively quote a source to remove the fact that it did say violent-adjacent and threatening actions would happen ("Most anti-corporate activists will almost certainly use non-violent – but still threatening – tactics. This includes staging protests outside corporate offices, verbally confronting executives and swatting them (which involves falsely reporting to the police that a crime is occurring at the target’s house)."). This is the quality of journalism he has to offer - it's not good! Toa Nidhiki05 23:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Mangione killed Thompson. He didn't threaten Thompson, he didn't swat Thompson, he didn't protest Thompson, he didn't verbally confront Thompson. The NYPD wrote about people following his example of killing someone, not about "violent-adjacent" acts, and Klippenstein was responding to what they actually said. Your own quote describes "non-violent ... tactics," which clearly isn't responsive to the NYPD's actual statement.
And you still can't bring yourself to answer my question: Why doesn't writing for The Intercept and The Nation count when assessing whether Klippenstein's a reliable source? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because neither of them are high-quality sources. They're fairly partisan left-wing outlets. Of the two, The Nation has a better reputation. If someone wrote for National Review and the Washington Examiner - two reasonably well-received right-wing outlets - that wouldn't make them a credible independent source either. Writing a few articles doesn't mean you have inherited reliability from the source outlet. Toa Nidhiki05 00:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: bias is distinct from reliability. There is no consensus on the reliability of either the National Review or the Washington Examiner in the RSP. There is consensus that The Intercept and The Nation are reliable sources, your personal opinion about them notwithstanding. He clearly wrote more than "a few" articles for them, as you can see from the relevant lists of articles on their websites. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read the Harvard Business piece I linked, you wouldn't be trying to draw a distinction between threats and attacks:
"Threat is a combination of capability and intent. A man holding a pistol represents capability. The decision to pull the trigger is intent. Capability might be manifest (a visible weapon) or hidden (a concealed pistol.) Intent is harder to divine and, critically, can transform in an instant." (linked above)
In security jargon a 'threat' is something that indicates a potential for causing harm, injury or death. Mangione was a threat when he was stalking outside Thompson's hotel with a Glock, as well as when he pulled out the Glock to fire. In no sense is the term 'threat' divorced from the probability of a violent attack. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only did I read the HBR piece, I quoted from it to you. Bizarre that you think I can quote without reading. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And HBR makes two points:
"Corporate leaders today are more likely to see shareholder meetings disrupted by extremist groups with tactics designed to produce outrage and publicity, not casualties."
Which sounds very much like what Klippenstein quoted from Dragonfly. But then they go on to say:
"But in a year of febrile politics, rising popular frustration with institutions, and two separate attempts to assassinate President Trump, the risks to executives in just about any industry cannot be minimized. The presence of an estimated more than 400 million firearms in the United States, combined with easy access to personal location data, schedules, and life patterns only adds to the danger."
And from then on they continue to use language consistent with the NYPD's report, and it is there where they quote Global Guardian.
What Klippenstein does, is he'll cherry-pick the first part, mischaracterize or exaggerate what the NYPD has said, then tell his readers that the NYPD report is "nonsense." I suppose this type of game works on his substack, where his readers are uncritical and don't check his sources or scrutinize his interpretation, but Wikipedia should have a higher bar than this, especially for a self-published article. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Bias is distinct from reliability."
This is such BS. The reason why we make a distinction between bias and reliability is to prevent editors from using an author's bias to dispute reliable and factual content. For example:
  • Consensus in science says humans are driving global warming.
  • An environmentalist reports this in "Green Magazine."
  • An oil industry hack comes on Wikipedia claiming the author and publication are biased (and tries to remove content).
That's why this rule exists, to prevent scenarios like the one above from playing out. It does not exist to protect rogue journalists, who once upon a time may have worked for a mainstream publication, and are now self-publishing rants against their profession and other mainstream institutions, and selectively presenting sources to their readers to push narratives. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the date of the Global Guardian link -the first was from 2021, but the Harvard Business Review piece was dated December 6, 2024. All that really shows is that GG has been anticipating violent attacks on executives for years, and it is unclear why you think they've changed their assessment after one actually happened. If you read their quote in the Harvard Business Review, they certainly have not taken a view that's inconsistent with the NYPD report. Again, this was brought up to show that Klippenstein selectively quotes security reports, and he even cherry-picked content of those reports. Jonathan f1 (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few general points:
  • It's best not to assume things about people's beliefs (e.g.,"it is unclear why you think they've changed their assessment after one actually happened" assumes that that's what I think, when I neither said nor implied that; I didn't consider it relevant to this exchange, so I hadn't thought about it one way or another). If you're wondering what someone thinks, ask them.
  • It's good to distinguish between facts and conjectures. When you say "What Klippenstein does, is he'll cherry-pick the first part ..." (referring to the first of your two quotes from the HBR article), you're conjecturing how he'd respond to reading that article. When you say (above) "I just think that if you sat this guy down alone, perhaps over a couple of drinks, and asked him ...," you're conjecturing about how he'd respond. These kinds of conjectures about how a reporter would respond in a hypothetical situation aren't productive in assessing whether an actual source is a RS for the content that's actually sourced to it.
  • Many words have more than one meaning. People may shift from one meaning to another during an exchange, but everyone interprets the meaning correctly each time; other times, one person uses the word and another person misinterprets how it's being used (e.g., one person uses "medicine" to refer to the general practice that doctors engage in, while another interprets it as medication), or the word is used one way in one interaction and a different way in another interaction. "Threat" has more than one meaning. Klippenstein is not using "threat" with the same meaning as Kolbe (for that matter, some security experts would find Kolbe's explanation incorrect, instead saying that threat involves four factors: capability, intent, opportunity, and motivation). Dragonfly was using "threat" in the sense of Klippenstein, not the sense of Kolbe.
You and I disagree about whether Klippenstein was cherrypicking. You and I disagree that he "mischaracterize[d]" the NYPD's statement. I don't think we're making headway with resolving these issues. I also don't feel like this exchange is generally helping to improve the article (which is what Talk pages are for), so I'm unlikely to respond further. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't going anywhere because you won't acknowledge basic facts. If the Klippenstein situation were reversed, and he was directing his scorn at a private security company vs the NYPD, most people here would say we can't go by one company, they've got a vested interest, can't go against the NYPD. But because it's the NYPD being attacked by a self-published journalist, who's apparently a fan favorite here, all of a sudden it becomes a Herculean task to show he's selectively quoting a report from one firm to push a narrative. He didn't even characterize the NYPD report fairly (they never said this is the "beginning of a violent insurgency against corporate executives"), and he led his readers to believe the Dragonfly report, or rather his interpretation of it, is the view of "security experts," which is far from the case.
A first step to improving the article would be to remove this junk journalism and find better sources. Klippenstein is mentioned 4 separate times and only one of his reports is referenced in a top-tier publication. But of course that's not going to happen, because when editors want biased narrative-pushing content in an article, they'll set the bar as low as possible, play fast and loose with the rules, and make it excessively arduous to dispute these decisions. This is pointless. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the name of [PRIVACY] not occur in this article?

[edit]

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

[PRIVACY] got into legal trouble for telling a health insurance employee the phrase "deny defend depose". That phrase links the [PRIVACY] 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 [PRIVACY] by the legal system as part of the discussions sparked by the events described in this article. So I think that the [PRIVACY] 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).[reply]

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)[reply]
"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 [Privacy] 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).[reply]
Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia avoids unnecessary harm by being cautious with sensitive information. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this elsewhere, but my opinion is the deciding factor should be whether or not the defendant disputes the charges. The presumption of innocence does not negate facts, and it is possible to say someone did something without saying they committed a crime. "Alice killed Bob" is not the same as "Alice murdered Bob" because a homicide only becomes a murder after it's ruled as such in a trial. A verdict from a jury does not change the fact that they killed — or didn't kill — someone. This is often true in self-defense cases as the question is whether or not the use of deadly force was justified (as opposed to "whodunit"). I don't see an issue with naming someone if it's obvious they are the perpetuator.
On the flip side, if a person is convicted of something but continues to maintain their innocence, then we should only mention the conviction without actually stating they committed the crime. Wrongful convictions do happen from time to time. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Alternative proposal 2. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please clarify "The complaint"

[edit]

The only time "the complaint" appears in the article is here:

The complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney's Southern District of New York calls the letter "The Feds Letter" because it is addressed "To the Feds." The complaint was unsealed on December 19, 2024.

That needs a lot of clarification to the reader. What complaint? What purpose did it have? Please clarify. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue for the future

[edit]

I know this is more so an issue for the future but when more of the legal proceedings (in regards to Luigi Mangione's case if that wasn't clear) "start up" would it better to include them in a new "trial" section of this article or would it be better to create a new article for the trial and related legal proceedings? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&oldid=1268040103"