Jump to content

Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)

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

"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]
He was a private citizen, not a politician. SatanicYakuza (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no difference for what term should be used though. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:21, 6 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]
As a legal term, it's actually reserved for cases in which treachery is involved. For example, regardless of popular usage, the killing of, for example, JFK was not an assassination. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 01:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but JFK is considered an assassination. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:44, 9 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]
No, not at all - see Lord Mountbatten and Veronica Guerin. People who are not politicians can be assassinated for political or other motives. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Killed. Assassination is a very specific term in international law meaning that treachery is involved. It is frequently misused by those who do not know better. Assassination does not mean "killing somebody who has a lot of money or power." LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 01:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We go by what the sources say, and not everyone uses that definition. Your argument here is pure OR. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:56, 8 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]
We should include the video of the shooting, but not any photos of who the police suspect may be the shooter due to WP:BLP. Photos of the alleged shooter in other contexts are dubious, and the alleged shooter is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and those photos may just be a random uninvolved person.
The video is notable in that very few assassinations are caught on camera like this. Given widespread media coverage, I do not think copyright is an issue.
As for the ethical aspect, it gives the grieving families of those who were denied coverage by UHC some sense of justice. That's a lot more people than Brian Thompson's family. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 22:54, 7 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]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: proceedural close – Article now exists; further attempts at addressing this article need to be a deletion or merger (non-admin closure) BarntToust 05:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 The CEO's life and death should two separate articles. Regardless, of what people think about Big Pharma or the healthcare system in America should be. The businessman has their own personal information that shouldn't be cluttered with the information about his death. Rager7 (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it may seem callous but the argument is that their might not be enough personal information to be cluttered with his death, that he might not have been notable enough before his death. There are a lot of people who I'm sure were even more well liked by the public than him who only have Wikipedia page's for their deaths.
It's not about how we feel about the healthcare system, it's about his notoriety. ChromeBones (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He had some notoriety of his own prior to his death. Therefore, the articles should be separated. Rager7 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support He is not notable other than for his assassination and insider trading investigation. Also the current article looks like it talks about these things more then his life. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose He probably met the notability criteria prior to his death, although it appears that nobody actually created an article until after his death. 2401:7000:CD82:9000:54CF:16F2:2569:975A (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose both move or merge - He was clearly notable as evidenced by his page that has a lot more sourced information than just his death. Plenty of notable people don't yet have an article on Wikipedia for any number of reasons like an editor hasn't noticed, or hasn't gotten around to it, or the subject is not directly in their field(s) of interest, etc. But that doesn't make the subject of the article not notable. Sure, Thompson's death might have spurred the writing of his article. But the writing of a missing article could've also been spurred if Thompson had just been injured and not died, or even with no violence by just the eventual outcome of the recent lawsuit. No matter when the article was written, it doesn't change his notability. Articles that only focus on a person's death (without a corresponding wikipedia page for the person) are for when just the death is notable (e.g. say a regular office worker in a small town is murdered in a particularly gruesome way and it makes national news and has a lot of coverage and details, then that killing would be notable and justifiable as an article, but the victim themselves would not be notable enough for their own article). However, in this case, both the killing and the person are notable - in fact, one of the main reasons the killing has even become notable and gotten so much coverage is because the person is notable. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 23:35, 7 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 me • see 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]
Well that's not at all true. There are literally dozens of "Murder of ..." wp articles in which no murderer has been convicted, just a few of which are Murder of Zhang Hong Jie, Murder of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe, Murder of Mellory Manning, Murder of Frank Newbery, Murder of Nurin Jazlin, Murder of Alice Gross, Murder of Giulio Regeni, Murder of Sohagi Jahan Tonu, Murder of Udin, Murder of Sagar Sarowar and Meherun Runi, Murder of Yuriy Chervochkin, Murder of Betsy Aardsma, Murder of Blair Adams, Murder of Tammy Alexander, Murder of Nikole Bakoles, Murder of Barbara Barnes, Murder of George Harry Storrs, Murder of Hallel Yaffa Ariel, Murder of Trang Phuong Ho, Murder of Melissa Batten, Murder of Raymond Codling, Murder of Tony Golden, and the like. --184.153.21.19 (talk) 04:00, 6 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 (t•c) 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 than 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. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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]
      Since they are part of his legacy as head of UHC, they belong on his personal page. If we went by your reasoning, anything FDR did during WWII could only be on the Army's page and not on his own because "there's nothing that connects these to him as a person" Maximilian775 (talk) 00:40, 6 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]
    Being the CEO of a large company does not make someone notable & this is a small sub-company of the larger corporation. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There doesn't need to be two articles here. Lots of duplication here, probably best titled just as his name. Reywas92Talk 23:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Despite the abundance of comments in this discussion, not enough sources were shown to establish that this man was notable before he died. Badbluebus (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, has notability from being a CEO of a very large healthcare company, and other details such as the DOJ investigation make him notable enough on his own.  53  (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was CEO of the insurance arm of a large healthcare company, not CEO of the large healthcare company itself. -- GreenC 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The most notable aspect of the subject's biography appears to be his manner of death. Although he was being investigated by the DOJ, this was part of a larger investigation into the potentially criminal practices of his employer. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support He was not notable pre-death. He was not CEO of UnitedHealth Group (check the infobox), he was CEO of the insurance arm of the company. There is really nothing substantial to say, other than the 'man-on-the-run' thrilling nature of his death that captured media attention. -- GreenC 03:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There is sufficient coverage to establish notabilities of both the event and the person. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose Just because Thompson didn't have an article before his death doesn't mean he didn't merit one. I think a fair comparison is Jacques Hamel, whose article was created immediately following his death. In Brian Thompson's case, news organisations have been posting articles titled 'Who was/is Brian Thompson' (e.g., CBS, The Independent). Major public officials such as Tim Walz and Amy Klobuchar have offered condolences to his family. Dean Phillips and ABC7 Los Angeles have called his killing an 'assassination'. All of this is language typically used of people who would, or would have, merited their own Wikipedia pages; and is uncharacteristic of most of the victims in most 'Killing of' articles (apart from those where the subject also separately has his or her own page, as with Osama bin Laden).Toadmore (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The article includes more information than just his death. As former CEO of a large healthcare company, he qualifies for WP:GNG. This article and the article regarding his death should be kept seperate.—Mjks28 (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:DEATHS applies to Assassination of Brian Thompson which is a separate article. WP:BLP1E does not apply to this article because that requires three conditions and none of them are met:
  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. No, there are sources prior to the event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. No, the subject was the head of a large corporation which is a high profile role.
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. No, the event was significant and the subject's role was central.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AGREE. I was about to post the same comment after studying BLP1E. Thompson clearly does not meet 2 and 3. He also meets 1, but not as strongly. There is a rationale to have a killing article and a biography because the killing article will have lots of detail, such as the manhunt. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move His killing is notable, but he is also independently notable. WP:BLP1E does not apply, and two articles are needed. — The Anome (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While Brian has been covered, the fact that he is notable for his role at a business and his death suggests to me that the Killing of Brian Thompson and business articles suffice. The fact that only two sources in the article don't relate to the killing demonstrates to me very strongly that he was not a notable figure, especially considering one source is not about him and the other is WP:ROUTINE coverage of a notable subject that Thompson was a part of. Doing a WP:BEFORE check, I am baffled by how many people are arguing that he is independently notable. Every single article - emphasis on every - is about him being named CEO. Being in charge of a notable organization does not give you inherited notability. I strongly suggest that whomever is responsible for closing this discussion review the sourcing and the strength of the arguments made. Looking through the sources provided, nearly every source shown in this discussion exists because he was killed - only strengthening the argument that, if he was alive today, he wouldn't be notable because no one would be writing articles about him. The one article provided that isn't borne of his death is about insider trading done by multiple members of the company. In fact, in terms of coverage, he's not even the subject of the article, he's secondary to chairman Stephen Hemsley - mentioned only three times compared to Hemsley's nine. The article states: "UnitedHealth declined to make Hemsley, the other people involved in the trades, or its general counsel available for interviews". This article serves as a show of notability for Hemsley, but the other three have only an equal amount of notability to derive from it (very little). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose because Thompson is notable aside from his killing, although that is certainly a very notable event. I think having two articles, this one and the Killing of Brian Thompson is appropriate. R. J. Dockery (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, what would be your three best examples of sources showing notability? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the subject of a ProPublica and Senate investigation, along with a SEC-DOJ probe concerning insider trading seems pretty strong to me. I don't have references close to hand, but the sources in the "controversy" section are likely what you're looking for. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, he was not the subject of the sources that I've seen linked - the previous CEO was. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to do a thorough search of premortem coverage, but I have already come across this and this, which, while not strong enough on their own, do point to some degree of prior notability. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, this (paywalled) article from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune highlights insider trading as of February 2024, and was also featured in a list (paywalled again, sorry) of top-paid CEO's in the Twin Cities Area. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support almost all coverage of him outside of his killing is just WP:ROUTINE. Notability is not inherited, and if he wasn't killed this article probably wouldn't hold up at AfD. Merge with Killing of Brian Thompson as a WP:BLP1E. RachelTensions (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Andrew Davidson. When this article was created is a total red herring: the key is that although the article did not exist before his death, it could have existed before his death because he held a high-profile position and had existing media coverage. An article created on December 1, 2024 would have had sufficient existing references to pass WP:GNG. FlipandFlopped ツ 16:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To your point, I am fairly certain that this article could be wiped of all sources from before the killing and pass GNG / NOT. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But articles about him were almost exclusively routine coverage because United is notable. Notability is not inherited, after all. The only other article I found that talked about him discussed him as a secondary subject to the main subject, the former CEO, in insider trading. As Maximilian pointed out, the article would have nearly zero content without him having died. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Crain's and the two Minneapolis star-tribune article, along with whatever press releases and other content were out there, absolutely could constitute an article that would pass review before his killing. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find these examples compelling. As I argued in my support !vote, Brian is comparatively tangential in the insider trading incident as implied by the Crain's source; the article centered more on the former CEO, to the point where Brian is grouped as being the "other people" participating in the incident. As for the newspaper.com articles, I took out a trial, and him having a lot of money does not constitute significant coverage. It's extremely routine. As for the second newspaper.com article, it's just as limited; it's reporting on insider trading, and cites him as an example, but not a notable one, offering zero commentary on his participation. If he hadn't died, the article, using the sources present and provided, would amount to the Crain's article about insider trading (where he is a secondary subject), the announcement that he was becoming CEO (routine coverage), and that he had a high wage as a non-CEO (minor coverage). It would be an extremely, extremely weak article with barely any foundation. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This seems like a case where before the big incident, the person was arguably already notable, but the article was created afterwards because of increased interest. Current scenario is fine since the finer details of the assassination are now on its own page and that page would not be improved by some of the non-related biographical information on this page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But what makes him notable? Thus far, it feels as though the prevailing argument for his notability is that he inherits the notability of UnitedHealthcare. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, a businessperson is notable for the business things they do just like an artist is notable for their works or a sportsperson is notable for playing sports. It's even less of a concern here, because Thompson was sued in his personal capacity for alleged insider trading, which would (arguably) not be normal business practices. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent notability is an important part of determining whether a subject should be apart from the parent article - notability is not inherited. What articles are written about him? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really how notability's WP:NOPAGE works. It's primarily about the suitability of covering a topic within another article. The two obvious candidates for a parent article are the "Killing of" article and the article on the parent company of UnitedHealthcare, both of which would have issues accommodating the information in this article.
    This is not an issue of inheriting notability. Many people are notable even though sources entirely or predominately cover them in the context of more notable entities. Notability does not require reliable sourcing about a person outside of their area of notability. There was coverage of Thompson beforehand (e.g. the insider trading, most prominently), and combined with the post-death coverage, it's not longer a 1E situation. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and merge. Clear case of WP:BIO1E. No one knew who he was until his death. That, along with the subsequent celebratory reaction, is getting the coverage. Being a CEO doesn't automatically make him worthy of an article, let alone two. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 17:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose I think the subject meets notability requirements to have an article independent of the article on his assasination. AvRand (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The killing should be in its own article, or should be consolidated into this article with no name change. I doubt the killing was the only thing Thompson has done... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imoutofchoices (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This single event doesn't warrant two articles. The assassination is the article's only claim to notability. If material on the subject was not suitable for notability before, this event doesn't retroactively give it more substance. And no, he does not have inherent notability by virtue of being a CEO.Ironmatic1 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is significant coverage in the aftermath of his death that has focused on his importance at the company. Clearly needs to be two articles, especially as the manhunt for the killer may go on for days, weeks, or longer and will generate paragraphs of updates. Thriley (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that there's nearly nothing about him prior to death strongly suggests that he is not a notable figure. All of this information not only works as part of the killing article, I'd argue it works better there because it's all being discussed in the context of the killing. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm almost certain that notability could have been established before he was killed, since he was a CEO of a major company.PopePompus (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a CEO does not contribute notability to a subject. The only way a person can be notable is if sourcing exists that discussed Brian in significant and non-routine ways; ie, brief mentions of him don't count, and news of him becoming CEO doesn't count, because the news exists because the company is notable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know being a CEO doesn't contribute to notability. But the CEO of a major corporation almost always gets coverage in at least the financial news media, and such coverage does contribute to notability. I'll certainly admit that I haven't gone to the effort of finding enough coverage to establish his notability myself, though. PopePompus (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can attest to having done a search, and the extent of what was out there is in the article or in the talk page: one source mentioning him as a secondary subject of a controversy; routine sources recounting the announcement of him becoming CEO; and brief mentions of him as part of bigger articles. Legitimate question: do you feel that the sources that have been found are adequate to demonstrate that he himself is notable? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a CEO doesn't mean you're notable. Getting briefly mentioned in the news doesn't mean you're notable.
    It's just a way to notify people that a change occurred in the company. He was just some guy with a fancy job title. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 01:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close This should be converted to a proposed merger, as an article has been created at Killing of Brian Thompson. JJPMaster (she/they) 17:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the page move request should be procedural closed. Cfls (talk) 00:57, 8 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.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-Protection Needed

[edit]

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

 Already done: Also applied to the Killing of Brian Thompson. (I did not perform the actions, I am just replying to let you know that it has been done.) ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 01:56, 6 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]
Check the primary source still. If words don't match, go with the primary source, and cite both. Use the analysis from the secondary source. Wikipedia is a game of citation telephone and we have to mitigate that as best as we can. Misquoting could violate WP:BLP, which is a far more strict rule than "secondary sources over primary." LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 22:59, 7 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]
WP:BLP doesn't say that.

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources.

He's dead, so let's dance on his corpse (from a neutral point of view). LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 01:19, 8 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]
a mention of a lawsuit is not any indication of guilt. Trulyy (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but it can show WP:NOT01:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Maximilian775 (talk) 01:21, 6 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]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 01:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, while this is absolutely hilarious (in that Wikipedia "this is simply verifiable reality, here are the citations" deadpan style) and something we should do, "too soon" really does apply. We'll have to wait until a reliable source publishes an analysis determining that claims for any care Brian Thompson may have received would have been approved or denied if submitted by the average policyholder. Additionally, he would have received emergency care no matter what, due to EMTALA - the matter is the bill afterward, and access to followup care. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 23:49, 7 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]

I read that police have updated this to include a firearm cartridge casing saying "DELAY" (the bullet is the part that goes out the barrel, and the cartridge is the whole assembly of bullet, primer, propellant, and casing). Looking for up-to-date source, but we may have to wait until the media storm calms down to find a citation. There's a lot of activity in the moment, and Wikipedia does not need to be up-to-the-minute. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 23:54, 7 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]
  • Upon further contemplation, I would like to amend my vote to Option 3. Thompson did not have an article until after his death. Strengthen the original article first, in this case the one about the killing. Any biographical information or previous controversy is perfectly suited for an introductory paragraph of context, not its own article. TNstingray (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 There's a lot of duplication here, and two articles are not needed. Reywas92Talk 23:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 Most of his notability seems to stem from his assassination and its aftermath (this article did not even exist prior to it). All the relevant personal information can be put in the Background section of the assassination article. Also, the more appropriate name for that article would probably be Assassination of Brian Thompson, but this might be unlikely to happen since most sources seem to be reluctant to treat a CEO similarly to an influential politician or a political leader. Niokog (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3. I feel that the arguments in favor of option 1 and 2 operates are arguments borne of WP:INVALIDBIO. While the example provided is the association of one person to another, it should also apply to the notion that being an employee of a notable business makes him notable in turn. Reviewing the sources provided to demonstrate his notability and the sources present in the article, almost all of them are about the killing or exist because of the killing. The only ones I saw that deviate are a WP:ROUTINE article about a CEO change for a notable business, and an article about insider trading, where Brian was not the subject of the article (to the point where he is described as being part of the "other people" in the controversy). Doing a WP:BEFORE search, I found virtually nothing that wasn't just recounting the news of him getting the job. If he hadn't been killed, he'd have almost no articles about him, and the articles that would have been about him would be the same news piece over and over. If his notability relies so overwhelmingly on having died, that seems proof to me that he was not a notable CEO, and not all CEOs are notable. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 He was not notable before the shooting and investigation. Also anything found before the assassination just mention him, or at best give him a paragraph or two before talking about other things. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion is somewhat duplicative of the larger merge discussion above. That discussion has a 2:1 ratio against merging. Once the outcome of the proposed merge is finalized, I suggest another re-vote between Options 1 and 2. People voting for Option 3 are just using this vote as a forum to keep rearguing the merge discussion and wasting their vote - consensus to merge is almost definitely not going to form. It would be better if we could gauge the alternative preferences of the option 3 voters in this regard. FlipandFlopped ツ 23:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a vote, and consensus should be determined by the quality of the arguments made, never the number of people on a side. I believe very strongly that a large number of the !votes are based on the belief that he inherits the notability of his company, which is pretty clear cut in going against WP:INVALIDBIO. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree @Cukie Gherkin a lot of the oppose !votes are only stating that he is notable because he is a CEO, which is not true by Wikipedia standards, or they state that he is notable for some other reason without providing any sources or sources that only mention him. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am aware of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Although you have chosen that to focus on, the clear point of my comment was that these two discussions are duplicative, and that this new vote is redundant. If an admin deems there is consensus to merge (despite the strong numerical opposition, which is indicative but not determinative of a lack of consensus), then this is redundant. If there is no consensus, this discussion is not helpful because many voters are supporting an option (#3) for which we have just moments ago determined there is not consensus, but not indicating their alternative preference FlipandFlopped ツ 18:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that the discussion was closed, I believe that this should now become the primary place to discuss this. @Firecat93: Would you be okay with the header being modified to make it clearer that this is about determining which of the two should exist (either both or one)? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course Firecat93 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Per Maximilian775. Wheatley2 (speak to me) (watch me) 20:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Having two separate pages makes the most sense as his notability from his own life can be separated from his death. Rager7 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 I personally don’t see the immediate need to merge or rebalance the amount of information in each, I think the killing article is far more detailed as it stands, and that the info current in the bio article is relevant to documenting the life of the man. Failing that, option 2 Snokalok (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 seems best. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 is the best way to do this. As far as how to organize it, if you find my Oppose in the other discussion, I wrote out some ideas. Froggy26rk (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 — Thompson likely met notability criteria prior to death. Simply because no one got-around to creating an article should not now inherently indicate he is not notable. Secondly, this is the, what, second, third RM? Getting a little ridiculous. Lastly, the killing is generating more notability every day, it would seem. MWFwiki (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 is the most logical option here, to me. Trillfendi (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 seems to be the best choice here EarthDude (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - it is the best choice in my opinion. Its similar to Shinzo Abe and the assassination of Shinzo Abe where the Shinzo Abe article is about the person and the assassination article is about the actual assassination. Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of how to properly organise this discussion. ― BarntToust 19:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment The discussion which was closed clearly had clearly, in spirit, turned into a discussion of whether this article meets GNG requirements and can stand on its own. I think it is a little unfair to close that discussion and "restart it" here, while discounting the votes and arguments of the dozens of editors who already expressed their opinion. WP:BURO (wikipedia is not a bureaucracy) applies here. Those editors have no notice that their vote is now being discounted for a purely bureauctatic procedural reason. Either the discussion should be reopened, or the admin or deciding party should weigh the consensus inclusive of the above move discussion (where, in my view, a clear consensus had formed that he is notable enough for his own article and that this article should continue to exist). BarntToust, I leave this to you to figure out how to avoid this unfairness from manifesting, as it was you who closed the discussion on alleged procedural grounds. If you have no solution, then I think we need to unclose the discussion and find a compromise. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also ping JJPMaster and cfls because they are experienced editors who suggested the procedural close, and might be able to help find a compromise. Would it be better to ping every editor in the above discussion (seems excessive to me), or somehow "embed"/"port" the relevant votes/comments of those whose rationales are transferable, into this discussion? FlipandFlopped ツ 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flipandflopped: If we don't follow BarntToust's suggestion, I think we could do something similar to what happens when a technical move request is contested and brought to a discussion, where we copy relevant comments from one discussion to another. Although, there might be some problems, as this was a whole separate kind of discussion (move versus merger), rather than two different types of the same kind of discussion (move). JJPMaster (she/they) 18:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that those who opposed the move in the above discussion on the simple basis that he meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO requirements to have his own article, can be cleanly said to be opposed to Option 3. You are correct that there is ambiguity as to whether those voters in turn prefer Options 1 or 2, though. However, the onus is on us to find a solution to that issue as opposed to completely discounting those opinions from inclusion in the consensus! FlipandFlopped ツ 18:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Flipandflopped, we need to restart the discussion anew. Do we want to merge the guy into his own subsection in the Killing of Brian Thompson article? Will we assess that he has become well-known beyond his death for things—while associated—that are separate on their own? Will we just delete it? The original discussion was a question if the man was just the subject of being killed—the way forwards seems to be "is this guy going to be assessed as notable in retrospect? For reasons beyond getting killed outside of a Starbucks by a Timothée Chalamet doppelgänger, and being the subject of a public reaction comparable to the Ewoks dancing in rejoice at the end of Return of the Jedi?"
    It's my belief that beyond procedure, we need to hit at this thing from a different angle. Notwithstanding the events of his death as colourfully illustrated above, does the coverage of him, not just for being killed, but for stuff like being the prospective subject of an insider trading lawsuit—Being a CEO of a company of influence to the public— does that make him relevant? That's for another discussion actually of that subject to decide. BarntToust 18:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that the exact questions you are asking were substantively answered by the vast majority of people who contributed to the discussion you closed. If you would like, I can start to give you specific examples of very many votes which answer the "different questions" you are asserting this new discussion should include instead. By closing the discussion for purely procedural reasons and moving it here, where the majority is in favour of the opposite view, this results in unfairness to those voters who have no notice that those comments are no longer being weighed in the consensus. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, I only care about the death and the public reactions, I think they're neat and really telling about the world we live in today. Otherwise, I ask, "is it our opinions that despite there being information about him out there in sources, he is not relevant because all of the information that exists about him came out as a result of something objectively notable, him being shot by the Chalamet-looking dude?" Perhaps it won't be too hard to just form the argument again in a concise manner here, where we have a more clear and direct outlook on where this thing goes? BarntToust 18:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands, there is a crap ton of WP:GNG information available about him personally and his activities concerning the company and alleged corruption, etc; the question is: since 97% of this information was made available because he was killed, does this information contribute to individual notability? BarntToust 18:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're trying to have a discussion with me now about points of merits and substance - respectfully, this is not what I am getting at, so I think you are missing my point. You closed the above discussion for purely procedural reasons, and I am trying to point out a procedurally unfair outcome which flows from that close. Many of the people who voted in the discussion you closed expressed opinions on these questions, but if we "have a more clear and direct conversation here", at it stands those people have no notice that their votes/opinions which already answered these questions are no longer being counted. They either need to be notified or have their votes "incorporated in" retroactively. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, I support incorporating the merits of their claims into this discussion. Though recontextualising their votes might be, eh? Better to notify them. BarntToust 19:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, editor, I noticed you recently participated in a discussion of a requested move for the article Brian Thompson (businessman). There is a new discussion open at Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman) § Killing of Brian Thompson, and I'd like to invite you to participate. Thank you. BarntToust 19:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is reasonable. To avoid any appearance of canvassing though, perhaps we should seek agreement from a few other editors first - pinging Cukie Gherkin, Firecat93, JJPMaster - and maybe also consider collapsing this entire discussion into an openable box so that the thread is easier to follow. Thank you for responding so quickly! :) FlipandFlopped ツ 19:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    LGTM. JJPMaster (she/they) 19:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally think having an AfD discussion would be prudent, as it would create the most visibility for the discussion. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stopped at User:MaxnaCarta, because I'm tired and I want to watch No Country for Old Men. BarntToust 19:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well shoot, @Flipandflopped, I copied the message above into a bunch of prior participants' talk pages. I just started at the top of the list and stopped at one, but since it wasn't selective, I didn't do any canvassing. Anyone else want to pick up after User:MaxnaCarta? BarntToust 19:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 Evidence of notability before his death is decidedly lacking. It's pretty obvious that his principle claim to notability is the circumstances of his death and the press/media frenzy that has followed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 – Merging 'Killing of Brian Thompson' into 'Brian Thompson (businessman)' (#1) is simply non-viable at this point. There's just way too much extensive detail on the killing itself and the public response that categorically would not fit in a biographical article. For instance, the timeline at 'Killing of Brian Thompson' is valuable, yet we would never have that in 'Brian Thompson (businessman). Merging 'Brian Thompson (businessman)' into 'Killing of Brian Thompson' (#3) really also doesn't work well, because the relatively large amount of information we have on Thompson in 'Brian Thompson (businessman)' would have to be shoehorned into a 'Background' and 'Victim' section. I believe at this point that both of these are independently notable subjects (the killing is obviously notable, and I think Thompson has emerged as notable regardless of what he was before). The day he was shot, there was a valid discussion surrounding WP:BLP1E, but that simply doesn't apply anymore; plenty of coverage has surfaced which may start by mentioning the killing but which covers him in the typical biographical sense too. To address Ad Orientem's point about notability prior to the assassination: the argument is that reliable sources definitely now give a broad picture outside of just the assassination, and thus Brian Thompson is notable as a subject unto himself. Finally, there will be plenty of readers only interested in the killing and the cultural zeitgeist surrounding it, while many actually will want to read more in-depth about Thompson himself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 This is the best option because it allows us to have clear separation of information about the person as well as the assassination. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 I think there are enough sources to cover both the biography and the incident in separate articles. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But what are the sources that cover his biography? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the article. admittedly, these are sources that were published only because he was killed. But they are sources, and they provide information. BarntToust 23:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That they were written because of his killing indicates that he is not independently notable of his killing. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and yet, there is coverage besides. Wikipedia determines reliability by coverage in reliable sources. Take that for its face value. Opinions of editors on whether someone matters aren't determinants of notability: coverage in reliable sources are. BarntToust 00:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not besides, it's because. A living Thompson would be explicitly non-notable. The reason why he's being discussed is the same reason why any murder victim's life is discussed; an article on a victim's life, for instance, would not be considered to suggest that the person was notable for their life, because if they were, the article wouldn't need them to have been killed for it to exist. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 As I stated before, Thompson's article covers enough notability to warrant it's own article and his assassination is notable and newsworthy enough (along being well cited with good sourced) to stand on its own. It would be beneficial to have two articles. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 The killing is independently highly significant and there is a lot to say about the societal aftermath of it. Being the larger article, it does not make sense to incorporate the article about his death into his bio. However, he himself still passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO (in my opinion), so we end up with two articles. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Like others, I think there is enough notability for Thompson (things like the DOJ investigation) to have two articles.  53  (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 The matter is not concluded and the current structure seems fine for now. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 Both the biography and the event meet WP:GNG. To merge one into the other would add WP:UNDUE weight with so much content, as readers who are interested in either the person or the event may not want huge amounts of information about the other. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - WP:ANYBIO and NEVENT mean two pages are warranted — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 00:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural error Option 3 has already been decided. See above section with the large green box. The requested move was defeated. Forum shopping is not allowed in Wikipedia. ErrorCorrection1 (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3 is the merger. Where has this been decided? Brian Thompson has not been merged into Killing of Brian Thompson yet, although I do agree that merging it might be the best option. Firecat93 (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. No consensus was reached. It was procedurally closed on the technicality of the article already existing and the discussion format being a move. You can't just come along and declare it yourself after the fact lol. (tried posting this but got an edit conflict, Firecat beat me to it) Ironmatic1 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 We still have extremely weak sourcing around his life before his murder to get past the BLP1E; what's been added (outside the controversy section), is basically trying to fit a square peg into the round hole that is BLP1E. The controversy section is basically a BLP violation since these are not controversies directed at him, but at UHC and his role as CEO (which seems very likely why he was targetted). We also need to keep in mind that we have documented that he kept out of the public spotlight means that he doesn't meet PUBLICFIGURE, again making those controversies on this page unwarranted. (They could be covered at the UHC page, though). (And remember that BLP still applies to the recently deceased; one needs to ask if these would have been included on an article about him if he were alive, and I'm pretty confident the answer is no). Thus, it makes far more sense to cover his life briefly in the Killing article, rather than the excessive duplication and POVFORKing that is going on here. --Masem (t) 01:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3 First, going to paste my other reply because I think it's still perfectly relevant: 'This single event doesn't warrant two articles. The assassination is the article's only claim to notability. If material on the subject was not suitable for notability before, this event doesn't retroactively give it more substance. And no, he does not have inherent notability by virtue of being a CEO.' Also, I've noticed a lot of opposition to merging these articles seems to be on the basis of...the articles existing. Someone making multiple articles about something has absolutely no weight in this discussion. There is only one question here: does the subject have general notability outside of this one event? I think the answer is a pretty clear no.Ironmatic1 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. I'm going against the grain thus far, but from a reader point of view (the most important perspective), centralizing content in a biographical article is the most sensible. Thompson is mostly (but not entirely) known for the circumstances of his death. The simplest, most straightforward approach is not to atomize content in two separate articles, but just have a single biographical article that (necessarily) focuses mostly on the individual's death and its aftermath. Compare with Medgar Evers, Daniel Pearl, Leon Klinghoffer - no separate article on their deaths, and the biographical article covers the death. We shouldn't needlessly force readers to navigate two articles. Neutralitytalk 02:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Klinghoffer example at least is closer to this situation than the others, since the Achille Lauro hijacking does have its own article, and Klinghoffer's only claim to notability is his death. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option #2. Thompson would have passed the notability criterion even if he had not been killed. — The Anome (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. While the previous RM was closed on procedural grounds, it likely could've also been closed as there being consensus against a merge, since the other article was created about half a day after the RM opened and many participants considered it. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. Again, no one knew who Thompson was prior to his killing, which is far more notable due to its celebration and the horror show that is the American healthcare system consequently coming into a much wider light. If the likes of Daniel Pearl or Medgar Evers (as suggested above) have only one article, Thompson certainly doesn't warrant two of them. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 17:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by your comments that Thompson is not notable without his death, it feels to me like option 3 makes more sense than option 1. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Taylor Swift would never have been notable were it not for the manager Scott Borchetta discovering her, my friend, or if anything else happened. Christoph Waltz would not be notable if not for Inglourious Basterds being a film. And enough stuff came out about both of these examples afterwards for dramatic effect. In the case of this dead guy, we can't crystal ball it, but maybe this guy could have been notable if it came out about insider trading instead of Chalamet-looking guy killing him? BarntToust 18:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The figures you mentioned are notable for much more than a single thing. Mr. Thompson... not really. That said, I think it would be best if we suspended these overlapping discussions for a little while to allow the dust to settle and the media frenzy to cool down. After which we can have a discussion over the merits of this article either here or at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2, but retitle that article to Assassination of Brian Thompson per WP:RS. See Talk:Assassination of Brian Thompson for some of the RS describing it. Awesome Aasim 19:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deny, Defend, Depose

[edit]

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]
BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7ve36zg0e5o Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News cites an expert who argues this was a homemade hodgepodge gun, an opinion I share: [3]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 8 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]

Is using a non-free biographical image of a person immediately after (or upon) the said person's death (date) acceptable, unacceptable, or neither?
And the answer was:
Overall there is consensus against there being any kind of 'time frame' before which pictures of deceased persons can be used under WP:NFCI #10. This means that, in theory, images could be used immediately after a person's death...
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 6 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]

@Flusapochterasumesch: Hi, I actually just removed this detail from the article before seeing this talk page post. I wasn't sure it should be included. Hoping someone else adds their input to this section of the discussion too, but for now if you'd like to add it back I'm not opposed to it. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, to be honest I kept looking at the text "light brown or cream coloured hoodie" and thinking how daft it was that it was in the article at all. So I'm happy to see it removed. I mainly wanted to correct the colour from black, to the light colour that the police reported. As far as I can see nobody ever reported it was black - it was simply a case of someone looking at the CCTV image and deciding it was black (when it wasn't). Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunman or Gunperson?

[edit]

With so little being known for sure about the gunperson, should WP:WE be asserting they were male without any evidence? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources state that the suspect is male. "a surveillance image of the *man* pointing what appeared to be a gun", "The shooter appears to be a light-skinned *male*" (NYPD chief of detectives) "Police described the shooter as a white *man*"Maximilian775 (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying there is no actual evidence that the gunperson even had a gun? Just that they appeared to be a man and appeared to be pointing something that appeared to be a gun? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be WP:Polite, the sarcasm is unnessecary. I answered you question in good faith, and don't appreciate what I perceive to be combative language. Maximilian775 (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They know who he is. Most sources have reported that they have his phone, a good DNA sample, and his face on camera. Since it’s an ongoing investigation, they aren’t going to release all the details just yet. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We repeat what is said in reliable secondary sources. Pretty much all are using the male form of the term. I have not seen a single source even speculating that the villain might be female. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even with sources may I remind you not to add speculation to articles. May I also remind you that gender is non-binary and we know nothing about the gunperson's gender identity. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not substitute our personal beliefs or prejudices for what is reported in reliable sources. As for your second sentence, out of deference to WP:FORUM I will confine myself to noting that the nature of gender is a hotly debated subject both within the scientific community and culture more broadly. You are entitled to your opinion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Deny”, “Defend”, and “Depose”

[edit]

For a second time I've removed the claim the word "Delay" was found on one of the shell casings. My first edit was reversed. That claim, as I explained when I made the edit, is inaccurate, and the source cited is the only place I've seen it. Quite clearly that word was not found on the shell casings, as seen in numerous other sources, and was not mentioned in the NYPD's latest news conference on the shooting. Who changed it back? Spyneyes (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

[edit]

Article suggests that Brian Thompson attended the University of Iowa in Ames, Iowa. University of Iowa is located in Iowa City, IA. Iowa State is located in Ames. 199.188.84.117 (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, other than his killing

[edit]

Thompson seems to have been notable for four things:

  • the massive profits he generated for his company
  • the human consequences on healthcare recipients generated in this process
  • his unlawful killing
  • the remarkable public glee at his demise

The killing is only one of these four. While there is definitely scope for expanding that article as the manhunt continues, we should cover the relationship between the other three here, as they were the major aspects of his impact on the world and lasting legacy. — The Anome (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also far more provable is the insider trading probe and the denials of coverage as investigated by propublica and the Senate. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. One problem that we have is that we don't have specific notability guidelines for business executives. So all we have is GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though, three of these points are directly tied to his killing, not himself. Before his death, the only one that he got even a mild amount of coverage on is that he became CEO, the company made money, and that he was involved in insider trading. Of these, the first is routine coverage that doesn't show notability, the second is relevant to UnitedHealthcare and not him (there are no articles I've found talking about him making this money for the company), and in the case of the third one, I've seen two articles about it - one where he was a secondary subject of the article, and one where he is mentioned once and no coverage was made of it. I am not opposed to him having an article if sources can be found, but thus far, the only sources that exist for reasons other than his murder are incredibly weak. I contend that WP:INVALIDBIO applies here - like a family member of a celebrity, they might get coverage, but that doesn't make them notable apart from the celebrity. In this case, most of the coverage pre-death - a huge majority of it - was exclusively because he belonged to a notable company, and nothing more. If there is sourcing I haven't seen to contradict that, then I would like to see that. I believe that the latter three points would do better being covered in UnitedHealthcare and Killing of Brian Thompson. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "the remarkable public glee at his demise", that's certainly how it's being characterized by some people, sources, etc. but having read everything I could get my hands on about this on social media, I really haven't seen any "glee", in the truest sense of that word, so maybe you mean something else. What I have seen (and mostly read about), are hundreds of personal accounts from people in the US who feel that their federal, state, and local governments no longer have their best interests when it comes to health insurance, and have stacked the deck against their health and well being. They feel that their lawmakers have failed them, the law has failed them, and that they have no other recourse but to support and defend the use of violence, given all of the non-violent methods available to them have been exhausted. That's the take I'm getting from the people on social media and elsewhere. There is no "glee" involved. These are people who are at the end of their proverbial ropes, many of whom have lost friends and family to denial of claims. There's no glee here. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is redundant, move to the above request for move PyropePe (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"UnitedHealthcare began using artificial intelligence to automate claim denials"

[edit]

Do we have an actual source for this claim? The source which is given for this claim in the article only mentions artificial intelligence once, and the following is the quote in its entirety:

Restricting access to health care through tools like claim denials and prior authorization, which requires that insurers approve the care in advance, are among the ways that health insurers try to weed out care that’s not medically necessary or not backed by scientific evidence – but it can also increase their profit margins. The practices, which increasingly rely on technology, including artificial intelligence, can infuriate patients and providers alike. A class action lawsuit filed last year in US District Court in Minnesota argued that UnitedHealthcare uses AI “in place of real medical professionals to wrongfully deny elderly patients care,” according to the complaint.

I don't see this source as actually asserting that UHC used AI to automate claim denials. It just says that insurance companies use technology to help make those decisions, and AI is part of the technology being used. That's vastly different than the claim being presented in the article that "AI is used to automate claim denials." As for the second half, these are only the allegations contained with a complaint. Treating what is alleged by one party in a lawsuit against a company as definitively true without other evidence is not how Wikipedia treats controversial issues. (And indeed might be illegal...)

If it is true that UHC used AI to automate claim denials, it needs a better source which speaks more definitively and concretely on the issue. Otherwise I think this claim needs to be removed. BabbleOnto (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The idea that "AI is used to automate claim denials" was investigated by the Senate in October 2024. I think you are fully aware of the company secrecy and the lack of transparency. As such, you are arguing for things that simply can't be adequately substantiated. We go with what we know, such as the Senate report and other articles. You're asking for perfect sources first, and that's not going to happen. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't include things in Wikipedia just because "Look we all know it's true let's just put it in and not cite it."
You are arguing both "The evidence proving UHC used AI to automate claim denials is so overwhelming and obvious that it need not be cited" but also "The claim that UHC used AI to automate claim denials is impossible to adequately substantiate." Both cannot be true. Something cannot be both "overwhelmingly substantiated with evidence" but also "impossible to substantiate with evidence."
If there is a Senate Report proving or even suggesting that the UHC used AI to automate claim denials then I'm all for adding that as a source. You allude to the existence of such a report but it's not cited to this point and you've offered no proof of its existence yet. Or if there is any other reliable evidence then again, all for that. But again I'm pointing out the source cited for this claim does not actually prove what it's being cited to prove. Unsubstantiated claims that are as specific as this should be removed or supported by a source.
I'm not asking for perfect sources. I'm asking for any source. If the claim is so obviously proven by a senate report then please, show it and let's put it in. Otherwise you can't just claim this and assert it as true without evidence. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already addressed this. We go with the sources that we have, and as long as they meet RS, that’s fine. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked, and there’s heaps of RS coverage talking about UH’s AI model (nH Predict), NaviHealth, and other related issues. Not sure what your point is here or what you are trying to achieve. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point here is the current source does not talk about UHC's AI model, and does not substantiate the claim it is attached to.
I'm trying to have a source attached to the claim that substantiates the claim.
I'm not and have never denied the truthfulness or falsehood of the claim. I just want a proper source actually cited in the article.
It's not really relevant to say "sources do exist for this claim in the article" if those sources are not actually cited in the article.
If sources do exist substantiating the claim presented, I'm just asking that they be actually cited, instead of just writing things down and saying, "The source is out there somewhere just look it up." That's the whole point of citations.
My dispute could be resolved as simply as adding a single source that you say you've found as a citation to the sentence in the article that I quoted. BabbleOnto (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to have a source attached to the claim that substantiates the claim.
I know exactly what you’re trying to do, and there’s zero reason or justification as to why you continue to do it. I explained this up above. I’m very sorry you don’t like it that dozens of reliable sources have covered this topic, but there’s nothing you can do. I recommend that you turn your computer off and find something better to do with your time. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m very sorry you don’t like it that dozens of reliable sources have covered this topic
I'm just asking for these sources to be cited in the article with the claims being drawn from them
I do not understand why you would rather die than have accurate citations.
If that claim has reliable sources backing it up then cite them in the article. Why are you so opposed to that? BabbleOnto (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those claims are already in the source you cited. You just didn't read it. I explained this below. Now, please, find something else to do. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in that source supports the claim that "UHC used AI to automate claim denials. See my first comment.
Your entire block quote is just
1. Things I already addressed.
2. Things that have nothing to do with the claim in the article.
I don't think you have even read the excerpt you've block quoted because 90% of it has absolutely nothing to do with AI or claim denial, which is the only thing that's at issue. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. And you did not quote the additional material from the article, you specifically quoted one paragraph. I provided the missing material below. But you'll keep at this regardless, right? Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: User:BabbleOnto disputes the current claim in the article which says: "Additionally, under his leadership, UnitedHealthcare began using artificial intelligence to automate claim denials, resulting in their customers either incurring significant out-of-pocket medical bills or being unable to receive needed medical treatment."[4] To make their argument, User:BabbleOnto selectively quoted a CNN article while ignoring other parts of the same article. The cited article also says "A class action lawsuit filed last year in US District Court in Minnesota argued that UnitedHealthcare uses AI “in place of real medical professionals to wrongfully deny elderly patients care,” according to the complaint. More than 90% of the denials are reversed through an internal appeal or proceedings before federal administrative law judges, the suit alleges....inappropriate denials of services and payments by Medicare Advantage insurers – including UnitedHealthcare, the largest player in the swiftly growing market – have come under fire in recent years, particularly from the Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates the program, and from some lawmakers. The insurers, which are paid by the federal government to provide Medicare services to enrollees, have at times delayed or denied beneficiaries’ access to medical care – even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules, according to a 2022 report from HHS’ inspector general’s office. Annual federal audits have highlighted “widespread and persistent problems related to inappropriate denials of services and payment,” the office said. ...The insurer more than doubled the rate of denials for care following hospital stays between 2020 and 2022 as it implemented machine-assisted technology to automate the process, according to a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation’s report released in October. That far surpassed its competitors, including Humana, whose care denials grew 54% during the same time period." User:BabbleOnto wrongly claims that this information is not cited in the source. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make their argument, User:BabbleOnto selectively quoted a CNN article while ignoring other parts of the same article. The cited article also says "A class action lawsuit filed last year in US District Court in Minnesota argued that UnitedHealthcare uses AI “in place of real medical professionals to wrongfully deny elderly patients care,” according to the complaint.
I did not omit these parts of the article. This is literally verbtaim in my original comment. I, in fact, directly addressed this. This is just an outright lie to say I omitted this.
The rest of the article I omitted because it's utterly irrelevant to my point. The issue in question is not whether or not UHC was under fire from the DHHS, whether or not the insurers were paid by the federal governments, or whether the rates of denials went up or down. To say I omitted this to my own benefit is both wrong and incredibly disingenuous.
The only part which could even be misconstrued to be relevant to my point is the part regarding "machine-assisted technology to automate the process," but once again if you actually read the source you'll find this is not referring to AI.
I'm asking anyone to directly quote exactly where that article actually says "UHC used AI to automate claim denials," or anything to prove the same. Because currently it's being used as a source to that claim when again that appears nowhere in the cited source. BabbleOnto (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Machine-assisted technology to automate the process" refers to AI (colloquially, as nobody uses actual AI anywhere, this is an academic argument). Your objection is absurd. All of these things refer to UH's use of so-called "AI", nH Predict, NaviHealth, and whatever other automated processes they use to deny claims. You're making specious, legalistic arguments. Your argument amounts to "AI is not really AI because they didn't say AI, even though they were directly referring to what is known as AI in the industry." Did I accurately represent your argument? Anyway, this has been fun, I'm sure. CBS covered this last year, so perhaps you'll give this a rest now? Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not read the source, or you're just lying about it once again. I notice you failed to address my first to points, where you just blatantly lied, but here again you are lying.
I would first find prima facie challenge to your contention being that "Machine assisted Technology" and "Artificial Intelligence" being two completely separate sections of original source that the article is using, but that point is moot because the actual report says the following:
"The minutes for this meeting described MAP generally and noted that, while it was “never a valid source to justify approval or denial of a case,” it was a “tool” that “points the clinician to significant sources of primary evidence” used in evaluating a prior authorization request'.” When committee members asked “whether the software creates potential risk of bias,” they were told that the doctor or nurse reviewing the case was responsible for verifying that “the primary evidence is acceptable."
So, for the second time, if you had taken the time to actually read the source, you would find out that Machine Assisted techonlogy is not "AI being used for automatic claim denial" like is being claimed in this article, and like you keep claiming it is (despite having no evidence except a source which proves you wrong and sarcasm).
Please stop lying.
And for what feels like the 9th time. Linking another article which may or may not prove the original point is completely irrelevant unless you add it to the article itself. You don't have to prove anything to me; but you do have to follow Wikipedia's rules of citation. BabbleOnto (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are intentionally obfuscating this issue by selectively highlighting some aspects of one source, while ignoring others. Now, realizing that you have no case here, you have taken an altogether different source to do the same thing, this time trying to focus solely on an actual tool called "Machine Assisted Prior Authorization" as a way to differentiate it from other technology involving AI or machine learning. This is the kind of specious argumentation I called you out on earlier in the discussion. ChatGPT: "While not all machine assisted technology is considered full-fledged AI, when a machine uses algorithms to learn and adapt based on data to assist a human, it can be considered a form of AI, specifically falling under the category of "assisted intelligence" within the broader field of AI; essentially, the machine is using AI capabilities to help a human perform a task more effectively." We both know you're going to be back here making the same specious arguments for the forseeable future, so here's a Fox News source to keep you busy in the interim. Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, realizing that you have no case here, you have taken an altogether different source to do the same thing
I'm citing the source the CNN article used. This is your source. You of course wouldn't know that because you didn't actually read it.
This is the kind of specious argumentation I called you out on earlier in the discussion. ChatGPT: "While not all machine assisted technology is considered full-fledged AI, when a machine uses algorithms to learn and adapt based on data to assist a human, it can be considered a form of AI, specifically falling under the category of "assisted intelligence" within the broader field of AI; essentially, the machine is using AI capabilities to help a human perform a task more effectively.
That's a cool opinion. It's not what the source says. You don't get to change what the source says because you disagree with them. This article is not your opinion piece.
We both know you're going to be back here making the same specious arguments for the forseeable future, so here's a Fox News source to keep you busy in the interim.
I'm just going to repeat myself for the fourth time now...
And for what feels like the 9th time. Linking another article which may or may not prove the original point is completely irrelevant unless you add it to the article itself. You don't have to prove anything to me; but you do have to follow Wikipedia's rules of citation.
BabbleOnto (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You misread the CNN article and avoided citing several other paragraphs. When this was pointed out, you denied it. When I posted the material you ignored, you switched gears and tried to redefine AI and pointed me to a different use of the technology. Here's the specfic info from the CNN article you claim doesn't exist:
A class action lawsuit filed last year in US District Court in Minnesota argued that UnitedHealthcare uses AI “in place of real medical professionals to wrongfully deny elderly patients care,” according to the complaint. More than 90% of the denials are reversed through an internal appeal or proceedings before federal administrative law judges, the suit alleges...inappropriate denials of services and payments by Medicare Advantage insurers – including UnitedHealthcare, the largest player in the swiftly growing market – have come under fire in recent years, particularly from the Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates the program, and from some lawmakers. The insurers, which are paid by the federal government to provide Medicare services to enrollees, have at times delayed or denied beneficiaries’ access to medical care – even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules, according to a 2022 report from HHS’ inspector general’s office. Annual federal audits have highlighted “widespread and persistent problems related to inappropriate denials of services and payment,” the office said.
That quote refers directly to the use of AI to deny claims, a quote you continue to say doesn't exist. It refers to the use of nH Predict software, not Machine Assisted Prior Authorization, even though both may be loosely described as machine assisted technologies. Your point was that the latter wasn't because there were medical professionals reviewing the cases, but that's an entirely separate problem from that of nH Predict. Are you getting it? When I pointed out that the general definition still applies regardless of the specific tools, and I reminded you that the other tools in question had already been covered by the original CNN article, you continued to ignore the central point and deflected by pointing to other articles, while accusing me of the same. Are you finished yet? I've got other things to do. There's nothing wrong with the CNN article or any other article for that matter. But you'll still persist, won't you? A better use of your time would be to work on improving the UnitedHealth Group and Optum series of articles. Better yet, you could help create articles and content about nH Predict and NaviHealth. But nope, you will choose this topic in lieu of all of others, just like General Custer. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I prove you incorrect you just change the subject to something else.
I'm not just going to sit here and let you bring up infinite numbers of lies to have me disprove.
That quote refers directly to the use of AI to deny claims, a quote you continue to say doesn't exist. That's really weird, don't you think?
It does not do this. The quote you presented here does not even mention AI at all.
If you disagree, point to exactly where you think those quotes makes the claim "UHC uses AI to automatically deny claims." Because I see absolutely nothing that suggests anything remotely close to that.
I think you realized you were wrong a long time ago and are just trying to waste my time. I can't think of another explanation for having me read an entire block quote just to find out you lied about what it says. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quote clearly refers to AI, it mentions AI, and I've posted it twice now. Are you okay? Read it again. And again. I hope you are okay and take care of yourself. I think your confusion stems from the fact that you don't undersand that UnitedHealthcare used three separate machine assisted models: 1) Machine Assisted Prior Authorization, 2) Healthcare Economics Auto Authorization Model, and 3) nH Predict. The locus of your personal dispute surrounds the claims that UnitedHealthcare used AI to automate claim denials. This specific allegation only concerns the use of nH Predict.[5] Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, when lying did not work, you've now resorted to Editing your comments retroactively to change what they say in your final desperate attempt to save yourself. Did you not know that the changelog is public?
Truly pathetic behavior. BabbleOnto (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost count on how many times you've called me a liar now. Can you remind me? Oh, and great way to game the system with this discussion. You've only got 478 edits to go until you can edit through the protection. Very smart. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The time when he retroactively edited his comment to add "AI" to it, then said look, it always said AI, are you crazy how did you miss it? BabbleOnto (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It did, but in one example, the quote got cut (truncated) and I had to add it back. It’s odd that this bothers you when you started out posting this very quote. I take it from your newfound concern with my person you have now forfeited the argument and moved on to bigger and better things? Or are you still persisting with your "Last Stand"? What changes are you looking for here? I think we can see now how your argument relied on ignoring one of three software models, two of which you accurately noted aren’t directly related to the specific claim at hand, but which I also noted are widely interpreted as forms of automation lumped in under the umbrella of AI. Are we done? Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have been secretly changing your comments retroactively then attempting to gaslight me for not addressing things you didn't originally even say.
That's about as dishonest as it gets, and forfeits your point. BabbleOnto (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you two acting like this? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That never happened. But I see Amystewart224 has now taken up where you left off. How droll. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quite literally linked exactly where you did it.
Here, if you wanted it again. BabbleOnto (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Virditas's arguments. @BabbleOnto, you are acting ridiculously, in my view. Firecat93 (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please find another place to babble! (; Firecat93 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Completely agree? Even the ones he post facto changed? So do you agree with the original arguments or the new ones?
Could you give a reason why, if there are apparently so many sources corroborating this claim, we aren't citing them? BabbleOnto (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't there be two articles?

[edit]

Why can't there be this original article, which covers everything about him and only briefly mentions his killing, and then a different article that has all of the information about his killing? I'm pretty sure there should be enough sources and information for both, and the main article could link to the secondary article specifically about the killing itself separately. Therguy10 (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I'm now aware that a secondary article exists; sorry about my tenses being off. That's on me. Therguy10 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also: POV fork. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok I see now. Thank you for linking that! Therguy10 (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Known for

[edit]

Please edit - he’s not “known for” but rather accused of, intentionally, denying health insurance claims. Not factual. Amystewart224 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I removed that line. We have some nasty allegations, none proven, and of course was killed, which is duplicative as to cause of death. Coretheapple (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life - sons

[edit]

Their sons names are Bryce and Dane (not Brian and Mark). 2600:1700:F530:3210:2896:D1DD:1122:96F4 (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We tend not to include the names of children in a biography unless (loosely speaking): 1) these names are covered in reliable, independent sources (e.g. not obituaries authored by the family); and 2a) the children themselves have some notability unto themselves, or 2b) the children are adults, or 2c) the subject is a historical figure and the children are long-dead. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walz’s credibility — source & relevance

[edit]

Tim Walz (Governor of Minnesota) is listed here as someone whose credibility is poor. The two citations in the entry about Brian Thompson don’t bear that out. Also, how is that relevant here? Feels more like a jab against Tim Walz as opposed to focusing on the subject of the entry, Mr. Thompson? Elizabeth2025 (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content in question has been reverted by User:Zukorrom. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Aftermath' section

[edit]

Since we have an article on the shooting, I don't believe it is appropriate to have this section here. It is much too large. Coretheapple (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple, I agree. I removed it, and another editor restored. I just opened a section below, but I see it's redundant, I'll delete and we can discuss here. Valereee (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was he buried in a cemetary?

[edit]

Does anyone have any information about the funeral for Thompson? 50.103.237.13 (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI

[edit]

This statement is an opinion. UHC utilizes AI to automate processing. There’s no evidence the objective was to increase denials:

“Additionally, under his leadership, UnitedHealthcare began using artificial intelligence to automate claim denials, resulting in their customers either incurring significant out-of-pocket medical bills or being unable to receive needed medical treatment.” Amystewart224 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

results are often unintentional. The text supports that. It never says intent, execution, it says cause, effect. BarntToust 22:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the cause description is misleading - UHC uses automation to process more than just denials, but also payments. This line suggests it’s solely used for denials. Amystewart224 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
do we have reliable sources to support that? Is talking about payment processes relevant or of due weight? Methinks the answer is no. BarntToust 23:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United’s stated AI objectives: https://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/ns/making-health-care-work-smarter.html#:~:text=%22At%20UnitedHealth%20Group%2C%20we',on%20what%20they%20do%20best.
Whether or not AI resulted in denial increases, there’s no evidence that UHC began using AI to automate JUST denials. AI is used to pay claims as well, which isn’t mentioned. Amystewart224 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but is this relevant here? Is claim processing integral to understanding him? The point of having the part about claim denials is so information can be imparted: that being the various controversies surrounding him that he is known for, mocked on the internet en memorium for, and which was the probable reason why was shot in the back by a Timothée Chalamet doppelgänger. On Wikipedia, coverage that is found in reliable sources is reflected in articles. perhaps your proposed change would work better somewhere relevant, such as the UnitedHealth Group article? BarntToust 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less biased to qualify the cause as “automate claim processing” instead of “automate claim denials”, leaving the second phrase to address the effect = denial increases. To understand him is to quote his and UHC’s intent accurately, yes. UHC did not seek to increase denials. Amystewart224 (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in short, there was an AI processing system. Processing systems say either 'yay' or 'nay', right? What is significant about a processing system accepting someone? Nothing. The relevance to be gotten from the subject is that it caused trouble most of the time, and the fact that it caused trouble led to controversy and hatred, epitomised by a Chalamet-looking guy shooting him in NYC. BarntToust 23:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes AI caused the problem. Inadvertently. I get the news is the denials, but the phrasing used here is that AI was approved by him with malice or bad faith. That’s a wildly hot assumption, but not proven true. I don’t see any article cited that supports UHC adopted AI to increase denials, but that’s what this is saying. Amystewart224 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The misunderstanding or lack of interest in his/UHC’s intent with AI seems to be the reason he was killed. Amystewart224 (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any article cited that supports UHC adopted AI to increase denials
I'm sorry you don't "see" that, but there are multiple articles about this very topic, published well before the murder even took place. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is an opinion. UHC utilizes AI to automate processing. There’s no evidence the objective was to increase denials

The sources say otherwise, pointing out huge amounts of evidence, in fact, based on lawsuits and a Senate investigation, all pointing to the use of specific software. How do you explain this as "inadvertent", when the whole point is to deny claims and make more money? I've never seen this kind of denial before. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to what the sources say, but the fact that they have an abnormally high denial rate does not suggest to me that this is inadvertent. If the sources are contending the intent of the AI, assuming that the evidence they present is compelling, I don't see how it could be a misunderstanding or a lack of interest. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's almost zero evidence of inadvertent denials by their software. Amystewart224, like BabbleOnto, is simply ignoring the evidence. I'm currently looking at ProPublica's "How UnitedHealth’s Playbook for Limiting Mental Health Coverage Puts Countless Americans' Treatment at Risk" (November 19, 2024), and a dozen others. In D.K., et al. v. United Behavioral Health, et al. (2023), "The Court ultimately concluded United did act arbitrarily and capriciously" in terms of its denials. That's the exact opposite of inadvertent. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UBH case isn’t related to AI. I understand the doubt, but it’s not a proven fact that AI was implemented by design solely to increase denials. The article I shared detailed the intent. It’s biased to frame the intent on the results. Amystewart224 (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The larger case of denials is indeed related to AI, an umbrella term which includes "algorithm-driven practices”. ProPublica discusses a system called ALERT which was developed by PacifiCare Behavioral Health before it merged with United in 2005. The ProPublica article is about how this kind of software was used to limit mental health coverage, which is the locus of the latter cited case, even though that specific case doesn’t go into or discuss the details of their inner workings. Again, "While not all machine assisted technology is considered full-fledged AI, when a machine uses algorithms to learn and adapt based on data to assist a human, it can be considered a form of AI, specifically falling under the category of "assisted intelligence" within the broader field of AI; essentially, the machine is using AI capabilities to help a human perform a task more effectively.” Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

BarntToust, I removed a couple chunks from that lead, as I don't think they're appropriate for a BLP. Valereee (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDP, you mean. It's my view that we should reflect information found in reliable sources, but if you contest, I've not got the time for depthed discussion this afternoon. BarntToust 22:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to those recently deceased. Stephen 22:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. When reliable sources present a view on a public figure, we reflect them. See Donald Trump. here's the thing: we have sources saying this guy was a private person, yet he has posthumously become de facto a public figure. I mean, literally everyone with a computer connected to the internet can see him die; and death, next to probably birth and sex is of the most intimate parts of life.
Eh, slippery slope. Good call. Sure, he's on full blast in reality, but it's best to adhere to the safe side. BarntToust 23:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be an accurate summary of the article, regardless of BLP. If there are WP:BLP violations, they should be fixed in the article, then the lead
It might be worth restoring the recent lead with some rewording given the content of the article. Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that has been done BarntToust 23:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems §Controversies―the largest section of the article―is not represented in the current lead at all. Farkle Griffen (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now, the part where the general public celebrated his death à la the Ewoks celebrating the fall of the Galactic Empire at the end of Return of the Jedi? That can go. But reflection of his legacy as a controversial individual who was regarded by the public as having a detrimental effect upon healthcare and those clients of UnitedHealth? Yes, that is objective fact. The same way that on Wikipedia we reflect that Trump is Hitler, and that the Israelis committed genocide, we reflect that this guy was regarded in a more negative light. BarntToust 23:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust:, I've removed the two redirects you created as part of making that comment, neither of which advances the encyclopedia. Redirects are not for point-pushing in talk pages. Either link to those articles directly, or don't link to them at all. — The Anome (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now @The Anome, Donald Trump and fascism actually does cover Trump and comparisons to Adolf Hitler. I think you'd be wise to reinstate that one. I created that one long prior to this comment. Don't misread the situation, now the one about Israelis and Genocide? you got me there. despite that the article exists and has for a while, and you can't deny that.
Do I not have a point here? We cover the tough stuff on Wikipedia despite there being some BLP policy. BarntToust 12:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you'll also find that the term America's Hitler, a term around long before I had any ideas, is a section redirect to JD Vance. Gotta point that out. BarntToust 12:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to link Donald Trump and fascism here, that's fine. "America's Hitler" is also a valid redirect, because Vance used that phrase, and the linked section discusses that usage. The other redirects are not, since you are creating them for rhetorical purposes for this discussion. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, first and foremost, not a discussion forum. Please stop with the disruptive editing; you don't need to create new redirects to make a point. — The Anome (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the "Trump Hitler" redirect a while before this Thompson guy was a dirty thought in anyone's gallows humor-infested minds. You are right about the Israeli one being made in tandem with this comment: yet I am right for the wrong reason. These redirects are plausible: Trump being compared to Hitler extensively shows up at the target, and the Israelis' military operations being compared to Genocide is the subject of that target.
These redirects aren't existing for the sake of me making a point: while they also happen to fulfill that purpose, they are entirely plausible themselves. again with all due respect, I'm sorry for being right for the wrong reason here.
Besides the points I raise about how Wikipedia treats negative content. Now about that, I'm right for the right reasons. BarntToust 13:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figure, "if these phrases are common enough to show up in a civil discussion about them, they are probably relevant enough to use as redirects". I create plenty of redirects using this line of thought. If I happen to be discussing a subject, and I write out given phrase that sticks out to me as a plausible indicator of a subject, I usually create a redirect to it, @The Anome. The Israeli one, I made because it seemed like a plausible indicator of the war and Genocide. The Trump Hitler one has been around before this Chalamet-looking guy was known to the public. BarntToust 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, everyone has a different way of reading the room when it comes to directing people to the proper content. "how do we anticipate what people are going to type in when they want to look up a certain topic?" is a question without an answer, and one that provides many lines of thinking to address it. I don't think you need to be accusing me of being disruptive by having created the redirect Trump is Hitler for a while before this thing ever happened, especially when there is encyclopedic discussion of Trump-Hitler comparisons at the target. Now I csn get behind questioning the Israeli stuff, though I think any further examination would find that phrase is a relevant shorthand for the target. BarntToust 13:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, respecting your questioning of the Israeli redirect, and given the rationale above, and also that there are no less than 87 instances of the word "Hitler" on the page Donald Trump and fascism as I write this, I am restoring that redirect as a matter of obviousness. Let's also look at a few sentences written in that article: "Conservative commentator Glenn Beck compared Trump with Hitler in 2016, calling him "dangerous" and stating that "we all look at Adolf Hitler in 1940. We should look at Adolf Hitler in 1929... He was a kind of a funny kind of a character who said the things that people are thinking... Where Donald Trump takes it, I have absolutely no idea", another instance is "In 2016, JD Vance said that "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon... or that he's America's Hitler"", and yet another is "American politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has compared Trump to both Hitler and Mussolini, described him as a "threat to democracy" in April 2024 and endorsed the suggestion that some of Trump's base supporters were "outright Nazis"". For you to delete the redirect citing the reasons you do is wholly improper. There are many, many more instances of this Hitler declaration, from Anne Frank's own stepsister Eva Schloss (no, really, check Donald_Trump_and_fascism#Invocations_of_the_comparison for even more) to Trump's staffer Steve Bannon, and the man who created Godwin's Law discusses it.
I have zero shame in admitting that I adhere to policy strictly as I can out of a desire to be objectively right. Then again, Ignore all rules. BarntToust 14:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public vilification and BLP

[edit]

I see that all mention of the astonishing public outburst of hatred about Thompson has been removed. This strikes me as unencyclopedic. While we should not speak ill of the dead in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:BLP, this public excoriation, warranted or unwarranted, is a notable event. Very few people have their death publicly celebrated to this remarkable extent - perhaps Osama bin Laden or Hitler come to mind - and the reaction is related not so much to his death as directly to the things he did in his career, with him acting as a lightning rod for Americans' frustration about their healthcare system - which is of itself something that needs to be reported here.

Per the section on "Balance" at WP:BLP:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."

Removing this material unbalances this article, by omitting significant information. We can validly report this without endorsing it, but airbrushing this out is not helping improve the article. — The Anome (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now restored the "Aftermath" section, per WP:BLPBALANCE, now titled "Reception and legacy" per convention in other articles about controversial figures. Note that it describes people both praising and criticising Thompson, and is cited to multiple sources.— The Anome (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Thompson_(businessman)&oldid=1262148829"