Jump to content

Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)

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

Death

[edit]

Major news sources have reported that he has died TheGoldenGladesKid (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Shooting of Brian Thompson"?

[edit]

If he wasn't notable enough to have an article before his shooting, this article should focus primarily on his shooting. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a great point TheGoldenGladesKid (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back - he is clearly notable as the CEO of one of the top healthcare companies in the USA. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that this may be disputable. We should Wait until further coverage makes it clear what the subject of this article should be. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing enough coverage unrelated to the shooting to establish notability. Unless that changes, I'm inclined to support the move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado The company itself doesn't even have its own article though. It just redirects to a small subsection in the parent company's article. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 18:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one thought that he was notable enough for an article until yesterday. This page was only created because of his killing, not because of his notability as the CEO of a healthcare company.62.64.240.38 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this, looking at this section, victims of crime are not notable by default and there is minimal media coverage of him outside of the typical comings and goings of high level executives. PyropePe (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be substantive insider trading allegations against him that are still pending, so it's maybe not just his murder. Maximilian775 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Needed PyropePe (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has a section about it insider trading lawsuit: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/business/who-was-brian-thompson/index.html Gothic Albany (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose (remain at "Brian Thompson" and/or create a separate article covering the killing) -- as per WP:VICTIM
"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes):
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."
I'm not sure I would call it "historically significant," but at this time I would oppose a move. May support in the future, as his pre-death notability is not tremendous. MWFwiki (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split Article Apologies if this is a stupid statement - somewhat new to this whole wikipedia thing- but wouldn't a separate article for the shooting and brian thompson himself make sense? Other commenters have mentioned his importantce as the CEO of one of the largest healthcare companies in the US but it is clear that the shooting is also a major incident on its own based off of media coverage and could justify its own page. Shadowfax817 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a stupid comment. The question (as far as I'm concerned) is whether or not being a CEO of a healthcare company is notable enough to warrant your own article. There will be an article on the killing either way, but is the man notable enough himself? I'm not sure that he is. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this debate is evolving and there's two articles, could someone change the link under "his killing in December 2024" to "Killing_of_Brian_Thompson" from "Assassination_of_Brian_Thompson" to avoid the redirect? Very minor edit, I would do it myself but it's semi protected. Chronoste (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support moving it. CEOs aren't automatically notable. His murder is what is getting notable coverage, not the man himself. The company itself just has a small subsection on the parent company's article. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this should be moved to a different name that better describes the situation.
  1. This guy is not notable by himself, the shooting/murder is notable though.
@Fuzheado I understand that it would seem like he is notable for being a CEO but that does not follow Wikipedia policies, please take a moment and read WP:Notable as it explains everything you should need to know. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "Murder of..." or "Killing of..." be better than "shooting of" though? JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 19:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one was convicted of it, so not a murder yet. Killing? He's dead, so maybe. Shooting is best until we determine if RSes call it an assassination or not. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with shooting is that it doesn't indicate that he's dead, which is what matters most. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 20:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to find the murder/killer for it to a murder. There are lots of cases that are called murders before the murder was found/known. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information

[edit]

This article is way too short and only includes his death. Including more information like early life, career and personal life could be cool TheGoldenGladesKid (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can guess what his Early Life will say. 162.251.172.112 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical in articles like this. Further details will emerge fairly soon as obituaries are published. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to say about his life other than "antisocial snake let's people suffer and die for money?" 68.101.77.128 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early Life

[edit]

Any chance we can get early life details? 162.251.172.112 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty clear 😁 158.41.178.204 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Killed" or "Assassinated"?

[edit]

Police believe the murder was targeted. Because Brian is the CEO of a major company, shouldn't that tick all of the boxes of an assassination rather than just a killing/murder? Evrstz (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Been wrestling with that myself. I don't believe we should use the loaded word "assassinate" until it appears in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are indeed utilizing the term:
"...Dawn Assassination." New York Times + "CEO assassination..." ABC (local affiliate) + "CEO's assassination..." Newsweek + "...before shooting assassination." Irish Times via MSN + "Thompson’s family was devastated by the news of his apparent assassination." Boston Herald + "...the apparent assassination..." Newsweek (again, but a different article) + "...assassination-style slaying." NYT (again, different article) + "Rep. Dean Phillips, of Minnesota’s 3rd District, wrote that he was '...horrified by the assassination of my constituent, Brian Thompson...'" Representative Phillips via X via CNN
That said, I'm not saying we absolutely should call it that. I would give it a weak support at this time. Given the term's usage in sources, I would see what others think. MWFwiki (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times calls it an "execution-style shooting." That's all we have at present. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, I haven't seen any reliable sources using the A word. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story is developing. There was a press conference. We shall see. Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. CEOs aren't worthy of the term. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 16:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. luxlunar (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your bigotry... you should know better...
Def: A person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. 170.85.71.78 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm the bigot who doesn't like people enabling the deaths and debts of millions of others. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is not consensus PyropePe (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's just my opinion. But that IP calling me a bigot? That's a personal attack. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our opinions are neither here nor there. We repeat what reliable sources are saying. AFAIK none are using the A word. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, might I remind you that IP editors are human too. Second, your behavior on this talk page is out of line and disqualifies you from making unbiased contributions, as you bear clear personal animus towards the subject. As a note to others, LilianaUwU has a long history of disruptive behavior 1 2 3 4 5 57.140.28.34 (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My history of "disruption" has no bearing on this. I think a CEO being targeted is not on the level of calling it an assassination because I feel it should be reserved for presidents or other politicians. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with this particular point. But due to your inappropriate and and emotionally charged comments, you should recuse yourself from editing this page. 57.140.28.34 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your seemingly-biased statement of "CEOs aren't worthy of the term" has no bearing on whether the term "assassination" is appropriate. Indeed, the assassination article itself states assassination "...is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important."[1][2] The in-broad-daylight killing of Thompson appears -- based off the information we currently have -- to be a "willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack." It doesn't require the individual be "prominent or important," but I would say the CEO of a 600 billion USD company probably qualifies for both those terms. Apart from that, sources have begun utilizing the term. "...Dawn Assassination." New York Times + "CEO assassination..." ABC (local affiliate) + "CEO's assassination..." Newsweek + "...before shooting assassination." Irish Times via MSN + "Thompson’s family was devastated by the news of his apparent assassination." Boston Herald + "...the apparent assassination..." Newsweek (again, but a different article) + "...assassination-style slaying." NYT (again, different article) + "Rep. Dean Phillips, of Minnesota’s 3rd District, wrote that he was '...horrified by the assassination of my constituent, Brian Thompson...'" Representative Phillips via X via CNN MWFwiki (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really comes down to what reliable sources say. I haven't seen any calling this an assassination so far, but if that changes, we should call it an assassination in accordance with reliable sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t “assassination” just used for politicians? Is he even a “political” figure? People are obviously treating him as a figurehead in the American oligarchy, whether he would have understood himself as that or not. Can the murder of a private citizen even be considered an assassination? Catboy69 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be though it is less common. See the above comments for a better definition. At this point though sources are calling it an assassination so I am inclined to call an assassination. Also @MWFwiki brings up a good point that 600 Million dollar CEO is quite big, at least when assassinated as there is little news of him before now. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

[edit]

Someone tagged the article for notability and then it was removed. We should discuss it here if there's an issue. He was the CEO of a major insurance company and is currently receiving substantial coverage due to his death. While ONEEVENT may apply I am not persuaded the article has a notability issue. Coretheapple (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for people on Wikipedia is determined by coverage in reliable sources, not paygrade. There is minimal coverage of this person prior to the shooting this morning, other than the standard notification required by public companies for the hiring or promotion of executives and a few articles about UHC in general. Policy is also clear that simply being a victim of a notable crime does not make a person notable PyropePe (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this discussion is redundant with the discussion a bit up on this talk page about if we should move the article to "shooting of". JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 19:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date?

[edit]

Some sources say 1974, some say otherwise... but right now, it seems to be unsourced. So what is it? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it says June 1974 without attribution. I think at one point it said "1973 or 1974" which would have been fine. I suggest the latter. I believe I am up against 3RR so I can't fix it myself. Coretheapple (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He graduated high school in 1993, so I'd lean towards 1974-5 based on an average amount of time in school. Maximilian775 (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCTV footage

[edit]

I'm not too familiar with BDPs, but I've added security camera footage (PD) of his death. I don't think this would be an issue (were a family member of his to see this), but we do exercise caution around recently deceased individuals. JayCubby 20:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah lets not. At the very least that's not public domain... PyropePe (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CCTV has no human authorship, therefore PD. JayCubby 21:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CCTV obtained by a news outlet absolutely can have IP rights Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a thread on Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Shooting_of_Brian_Thompson_CCTV.webm JayCubby 04:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is unprecented, and pretty sure also undue. Why do it this time over other times? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU -- On the unprecedented aspect, we have put CCTV footage for notable shootings in articles. I chose to do this time because I am currently active on Wikipedia.
On the undue bit, this article has a fair chance of being about the shooting, not so much the individual. If there is free media depicting an event, we add that free media to articles on the same event. JayCubby 00:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it rather straightforwardly makes sense to include. Benjamin (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if the CCTV footage is relevant for the article, but there is no copyright issue. Yann (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source for calibre?

[edit]

Pardon me, but looking through the sources on the death not once do the articles state it was a “silenced 9mm pistol”. They do state it was a silenced pistol nonetheless, but calibre was not once mentioned to my understanding? Jazzycheck (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jazzycheck: A couple sources mention that 9mm shell casings were found at the scene. [1] [2] ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jazzycheck Their were pictures of the bullet casings on news articles. I would be fine if the 9mm got taken out until further examination from the forensics team. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 December 2024

[edit]

Brian Thompson (businessman)Killing of Brian Thompson – Since the article did not exist before his shooting and notability surrounds his death, this new name is consistent with WP:DEATHS Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move. His killing is notable, hence the separate article. He's notable for being killed, but he was also a prominent figure prior (CEO of largest(?) health insurance company in U.S.). GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support. This person falls pretty squarely under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. The section says, "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." The killing has prompted some news outlets to write more on Brian's life but I don't think it's enough yet to justify his own article. Mariachiband49 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


*Oppose as premature. The nonexistence of an article on a corporate CEO means nothing. We have an entire paid editing industry that exists to write articles on CEOs who are notable, largely based on trade publications, but do not interest Wikipedia editors. I suggest we wait until obituaries appear. Would one day be so terrible? A few hours maybe? If indeed he is fairly dull and non-notable, I would definitely support this move. But I just don't know yet. I'm checking Newspapers.com so far to no avail. But that may not be a good source for this person. Maybe he was on the cover of fifteen insurance publications? We just don't know enough about him at present. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  • This early Times obit shows no great distinction prior to his death. However, I'd suggest waiting before reaching a firm conclusion as to his notability. Coretheapple (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC) Overtaken by events. New comment below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. It's a weird way of Wikipedia behaviour to have a bunch of "Killing of ___" articles. The guy was potentially notable by Wikipedia standards (mentioned in the print version of the Wall Street Journal for a fraud investigation regarding his dumping of $15M of stock before a news release of the investigation) but nobody bothered to start the article. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support notability before his death is not established. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 23:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. reviewing news coverage from before the shooting, it does not appear that he was convicted of anything, and even if he would have been found guilty in the future committing financial crime does not make a person notable by Wikipedia standards. Current biographies found in major news publications (who have more resources than Wikipedia editors) contain very little other than his work history and mention of the investigation. Also in the coming days much more information about the killing will be coming out and it would benefit us in the long run to have an established space to put it and then break this off as a bio again if it becomes needed. PyropePe (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Move I feel like the insider trading investigation and also the cyber attack have occurred and been discussed only recently. The New York Post an hour ago had a headline that said, "Exclusive Insider Trading of UHC is being investigated by the DOJ." The insider trading and fraud investigations are way too new. Brian Thompson is not dull and he would be notable enough to have articles detailing the other investigations and possible scandals. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would those allegations be better served under an article for Thompson or as content within United Health Group? Dode222 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dode222 Brian Thompson was facing a DOJ probe for his own insider trading scheme https://nypost.com/2024/12/04/us-news/slain-unitedhealth-ceo-brian-thompson-was-facing-doj-probe-for-insider-trading-report/, so yes I would say it's better served under Thompson. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“one of several” and The Post not the best at due weight. PyropePe (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Notability pre-death is not established, as JDDJS stated. The article was only created after his death - if that's the notable thing about him, it should be moved. Dode222 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely true. 2600:8806:A603:9800:3C07:431F:7D80:38F9 (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support almost all the sources talking about him before he was killed are primary sources, but there are a couple articles which give an overview of his life after died. But overall he wouldn't have any significant media attention to warrant a page if he wasn't killed. Scuba 23:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, let's see what RSes say in a few days JayCubby 23:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - was notable before. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 00:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as premature – Thompson was potentially already notable but simply didn't have an article. It's hard to tell at this point, but this definitely isn't a clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E which would warrant the move to the killing itself being the subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because of the fanboy aspect of Wikipedia. Articles about TV articles, high schools, video games, but not the CEO of a company that has revenues that are larger than some countries. The deceased ran a company that is larger economically than Panama, Costa Rica, Luxembourg, multiple times bigger than Jordan, etc. (The United Healthcare Group is bigger than Finland, about as big as Pakistan, a little smaller than South Africa)ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, agreeing with TheTechnician27. As the CEO of a major health insurance company, he would have probably been eligible but it's a boring article so no one had written it yet. ~Darth StabroTalk  Contribs 02:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support Thompson was not already notable, and CEOs of other insurance companies (e.g. Aetna) do not have pages. Should be moved to Murder of Brian Johnson.
Firecat93 (talk) 02:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firecat93: Actually, the CEO of Aetna does have their own article (by nature of being CEO of parent CVS Health; Aetna has no ostensible separate CEO), and this was created 19 October of this year. That said, right now, it looks like a non-viable article, and I've declined to mark it as patrolled. I'll add that WP:OTHER (disclaimer: this is an essay, not a guideline, but it does seem to accurately capture overall consensus) gets brought up as an argument at WP:AFD all the time, and it's really not seen as a compelling one. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CEO of Home Depot Ted Decker has his own article, and UHC is far, far bigger than HD. Maximilian775 (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Brian Thompson. We can't use murder because no one has been convicted yet. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His name is Brian Thompson. We can't use murder because no one has been convicted yet. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. Right now I support it, but as more articles come out I wanna see how this page evolves Snokalok (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as premature (remain at "Brian Thompson" and/or create a separate article covering the killing) -- as per WP:VICTIM
"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes):
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."
I'm not sure I would call it "historically significant," but at this time I would oppose a move. May support in the future, as his pre-death notability is not tremendous. MWFwiki (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Although, yes, he didn't have an article until his passing, there is enough information for his article to be his own invididual article. Furthermore, he may meet Wikipedia's standards for article nobility. He appears to have been well-known in some areas pre-death. The move would only be valid if nobody had known he existed prior to his death, but he had already been spoken of on major news sources before the murder. Ali Beary; (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support per argument. —theMainLogan (tc) 14:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to assassination article. Since I last commented on this, I see that an article was created on the assassination. I was actually going to suggest that such an article be created, separate from this one, and someone beat me to it. My feeling is that this article should be kept and expanded as new material comes out on the subject, while the assassination article deal with his death. Coretheapple (talk) 14:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support move per JDDJS' reasoning above. ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further support for not merging is that the insider trading probe that Thompson was involved in was public as of April of this year, perCrain's New York Buisness, pointing to prior notability Maximilian775 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge There's enough well cited material and information in this article that is independent from his assassination. The article holds it's own weight as a bio article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why don't we keep this page as is, give a somewhat brief description of the assassination in that section and add a link to the other page Assassination of Brian Thompson, where we can be more specific about what happened and everything that's been happening since (investigation, wife's interview, press conferences, etc.) Froggy26rk (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose The guy and the assassination of the guy should be separate articles. Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Biographical articles follow different format and rules that situation articles. A mention in the lead and under the ==Death== chapter with link to the Killing of Brian Thompson is more than enough. Dude is notable enough to have a biographical page anyway. Keep the two pages separate or, at worst, add the Killing of Brian Thompson to this one, without changing its title.
  • Oppose merge Both the biography and the event meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and both should exist. Often when a person's biography comes to Wikipedia because of an event, the person does not independently meet notability criteria, but in this case, the person does. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While it's unfortunate that an article was not created until his assassination, that doesn't mean his biography needs to be about his assassination... which is its own story. There is sufficient biographical data for a BLP and there is a photo of him in the infobox. What more could we ask for? Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support textbook case of BLP1E, there is very little notable info about him as a person (not as CEO of UHC) , even with what is coming out after death. It makes far more sense to cover the event as notable, and then in the future if more sources support individual notability, then a separate article could be made. Masem (t) 21:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will add the controversies section is wholly inappropriate from a BLP angle as they relate to corporate matters of UHC and not to the person directly. Those are better covered on the UHC page. — Masem (t) 21:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Corporate media attribute them to Thompson himself and calls his tenure "marked by ... miyriad accusations of insider trading and coverage denial", speaks of a "legacy bruised by controversy" and says "The investigations and lawsuit are a stain on Thompson’s tenure as CEO" (fortune)Maximilian775 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Which would be reasonable as a section at UHC about his tenure as CEO, but there's nothing that connects these to him as a person. — Masem (t) 22:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating prior Oppose -- this both articles have grown such that a combined article would be very unwieldy, and especially additions to this bio page in the "controversies" section show that even if the killing had not happened, Thompson would meet notability. Maximilian775 (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose CEOs of large corporations are notable. If they weren't, we wouldn't have Category:Chief executives by nationality. If somebody had created an article on him before he was shot, it would have easily survived an AfD.—Chowbok 22:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local references

[edit]

References

  1. ^ "Definition of ASSASSINATION". Merriam-Webster. 2023-06-24. Retrieved 2023-06-26.
  2. ^ Black's Law Dictionary "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for money or for political reasons" (Legal Research, Analysis and Writing by William H. Putman p. 215 and Eichensehr, Kristen (May 6, 2006). "On the Offensive — Assassination Policy Under International Law". Harvard International Review. Archived from the original on December 6, 2010.

Semi-Protection Needed

[edit]

Vandalism CavDan24 (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should it cite politicians directly instead of sources reporting on their statements?

[edit]

I've added a source (NBC News) for the statement "The response from politicians following the killing included sympathetic messages". I think I did it correctly, but after thinking about it more, would it be better to instead cite some responses directly? This and this are two examples. I'm not quite sure what the best-practice is here. Coconutmacaroon (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are preferred. This is to avoid interpreting primary sources (posts from X) yourself. Hzh (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class Action Lawsuit

[edit]

A class action lawsuit being merely filed against a major health insurance company isn’t particularly material information, let alone material enough to be included in the personal page of said company’s management. That bit should obviously be removed. Mwikiman (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we’re clear; Are you referring to the lawsuit referenced in these sources?
[1][2]
If so, Thompson was named in the suit and the sources are considered RS. Merely mentioning it is not inappropriate, especially since WP:BLP doesn’t apply. They are also not insignificant allegations. MWFwiki (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP still applies to recently deceased persons PyropePe (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure WP:BDP applies here, especially since the nature of the allegations aren't being discussed in-depth. MWFwiki (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When 15m of stock is sold by the person in question only 2 weeks before the announcement of the federal probe into the company, that seems to be very much material. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, when a major mainstream publication like Fortune points to the lawsuit as a "stain on the tenure" of Thompson, that is evidence of materiality. https://fortune.com/2024/12/05/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-lawsuits-social-media-reaction-motive/ Maximilian775 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Towfighi, John; Goldman, David (December 4, 2024). "Who was Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare fatally shot in Manhattan?". CNN. Retrieved December 4, 2024.
  2. ^ Graig Graziosi (2024-12-05). "UnitedHealthcare CEO gunned down in Manhattan sold company stocks just before DOJ probe made public". Independent.

Check the text

[edit]

This is inside the PROTECTED text Initially it was looking likely that Thompson would have survived, however UnitedHealthcare denied his insurance payout claim, as they do for 32% of patients, and he passed away.

can you please remove it 2601:8C:4300:7:0:0:0:1003 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:8C:4300:7:0:0:0:1003 uh, do you have a source to backup your edit (Personal attack removed)? 24.237.159.219 (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BRO LMAO, too soon I'm going to have to oppose this. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge killing?

[edit]

Is this a revenge killing? 186.177.184.39 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -  While I believe this is a revenge killing and the words on the bullet casings suggest that. However if and when they find this guy then we will know more about the motive. LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need for more information on DOJ / SEC lawsuit

[edit]

There is currently a mention in the article body of the suit against Thompson, but it only consists of 2 sentences and 2 citations. More substance in that regard would be a good improvement. Maximilian775 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words: "Defend, Depose, and Deny" were found on recovered bullet casings

[edit]

This is interesting information that points to a possible motive. The information that words were written on bullets at the scene is crucial evidence that should be added for more detail. <https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-shot-dead-gunman-bullet-casings-rcna182975> LeaveEmInTheTundra (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Locations from Timeline

[edit]

I've put together a timeline of events at Assassination of Brian Thompson -- If someone experienced in map modeling could use that to create a map of the events like those here here and here that could add a lot to the article. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Brian Thompson

[edit]

Here are possible options:

  • Option #4 - Other suggestions (please elaborate)

Firecat93 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option #2 - At the moment, I am leaning toward having two separate pages, with the assassination page going into more detail, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. Firecat93 (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #2 seems to be the best course of action for now, as there is still ongoing discussion as to whether Thompson is notable enough to have his own biographical page. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Option #1 or Option #3 (leaning towards Option #1). We will see what happens as the investigation unfolds, but I don't think either article will be strong enough to justify their own existence apart from the other. Thus, I would say discuss the assassination and aftermath within the existing biographical article. I'm more in favor of strengthening existing articles first before spinning short articles off, but that's a broader discussion about editing philosophy. TNstingray (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created a draft for Delay, Deny, Defend the 2010 book by law professor Draft:Jay Feinman. Thriley (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Good call. Firecat93 (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were a reviewer for AfC I would reject this draft. Please demonstrate how this book is notable enough for its own article. guninvalid (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I put it here in case other editors want to help with sourcing. Thriley (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move to [[Talk:Draft:Deny, Defend, Depose]] then. guninvalid (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate it if this could stay here. I may not have time to keep track of the news today. I think the words may be separately notable as an insurance tactic. Thriley (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna break WP:NOTFORUM. If you want to discuss your draft, we'll discuss it in the associated talk page. I've just posted a comment there. guninvalid (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are your initial thoughts on WP:Thriley's wonderful draft? @Thriley@Guninvalid Might one correctly conclude that your username 'Guninvalid' means you are an invalid as a result of firearm discharge? Perhaps you were kneecapped in a punishment attack for being a gangland informer? If so, that is soo cool! Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley I added more reviews. There's probably more but this is enough for NBOOK (if people want to expand it) PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Not a Malfunctioning Weapon

[edit]

This appears to be an assassin's bolt action pistol like a STATION SIX 9 (https://bt-usa.com/products/station-six-9), rather than a malfunctioning semi-automatic. I haven't seen this reported in the media yet, but wanted to alert the editors to be on the lookout for more information. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple law enforcement contacts told Fox News that they believed the weapon used in the murder resembled a "Welrod", a bolt action, suppressed pistol first used in WW2.
I’d bet my pension that this is the weapon that was used on the United CEO. It’s very, very quiet and requires manual cycling after each round is fired. Top choice by pros for up-close, quiet work," the source told Fox News. https://www.foxnews.com/us/former-nypd-inspector-skeptical-unitedhealthcare-ceo-gunman-professional-zeroes-weapon-choice Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that Sutton's law applies here. I've seen a lot of speculation that the weapon is a Welrod or something else, which I think is unreasonable. Forgotten Weapons has a very relevant YouTube short here debunking or at least frowning upon this theory Maximilian775 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I may be wrong. ABC is reporting that police believe it was a Welrod / B&T Station 6.Maximilian775 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this issue as these are expensive and rare handguns. The sound suppression only lasts for 100 shots before the silencer needs to be replaced. If this is indeed the gun, it or recent silencer purchase, will be far more traceable than a semi-auto.
This is the gun in action. https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/17idv9s/bt_station_six_9_wrugged_obsidian_9/ Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grew up in Jewell, Iowa

[edit]

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2024/12/05/united-healthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-iowa-murdered-new-york-jewell-native/76775017007/ CavDan24 (talk) 20:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Please be aware we do not allow non free images of the recently deceased under WP:NFC. Editors are expected to look for free replacements before resorting to nonfree for several months after death. — Masem (t) 21:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colour of assassin's coat

[edit]

The assassin's hooded-coat is currently said to be black, however the police have described it as light-brown or cream coloured, as reported by ABC and the BBC. He's probably changed it by now - so it won't help track him down - but all the same it's important that Wikipedia has some semblance of accuracy. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]