Jump to content

Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)

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

Death

[edit]

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

 Already done: also covered in the Killing of Brian Thompson. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 01:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Shooting of Brian Thompson"?

[edit]

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

That’s a great point TheGoldenGladesKid (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back - he is clearly notable as the CEO of one of the top healthcare companies in the USA. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that this may be disputable. We should Wait until further coverage makes it clear what the subject of this article should be. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing enough coverage unrelated to the shooting to establish notability. Unless that changes, I'm inclined to support the move. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuzheado The company itself doesn't even have its own article though. It just redirects to a small subsection in the parent company's article. JDDJS (talk to mesee what I've done) 18:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one thought that he was notable enough for an article until yesterday. This page was only created because of his killing, not because of his notability as the CEO of a healthcare company.62.64.240.38 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this, looking at this section, victims of crime are not notable by default and there is minimal media coverage of him outside of the typical comings and goings of high level executives. PyropePe (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be substantive insider trading allegations against him that are still pending, so it's maybe not just his murder. Maximilian775 (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation Needed PyropePe (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has a section about it insider trading lawsuit: https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/04/business/who-was-brian-thompson/index.html Gothic Albany (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose (remain at "Brian Thompson" and/or create a separate article covering the killing) -- as per WP:VICTIM
"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:
For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes):
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role."
I'm not sure I would call it "historically significant," but at this time I would oppose a move. May support in the future, as his pre-death notability is not tremendous. MWFwiki (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split Article Apologies if this is a stupid statement - somewhat new to this whole wikipedia thing- but wouldn't a separate article for the shooting and brian thompson himself make sense? Other commenters have mentioned his importantce as the CEO of one of the largest healthcare companies in the US but it is clear that the shooting is also a major incident on its own based off of media coverage and could justify its own page. Shadowfax817 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a stupid comment. The question (as far as I'm concerned) is whether or not being a CEO of a healthcare company is notable enough to warrant your own article. There will be an article on the killing either way, but is the man notable enough himself? I'm not sure that he is. JohnR1Roberts (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this debate is evolving and there's two articles, could someone change the link under "his killing in December 2024" to "Killing_of_Brian_Thompson" from "Assassination_of_Brian_Thompson" to avoid the redirect? Very minor edit, I would do it myself but it's semi protected. Chronoste (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Move due to him not being notable till now also anyone looking him up will be looking for the assassination not his life.
User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I think that he warrants an article. When the assassination happened, I searched for him on Wikipedia to find out more about him. I think that is enough to warrant a separate article HazmatPyro (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. No one really cared enough about this guy to make a page for him until he was murdered. The murder itself is what's notable about him. Not to mention that currently the page is neither about him nor the circumstances, but an opportunity to gloat about his demise (saying he was notable for high denial rates is ridiculous, if anything, it belongs on the page for United Healthcare GroupTheodore Christopher (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Theodore Christopher (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

More information

[edit]

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

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

Early Life

[edit]

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

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

"Killed" or "Assassinated"?

[edit]

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

Good question. Been wrestling with that myself. I don't believe we should use the loaded word "assassinate" until it appears in reliable sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are indeed utilizing the term:
"...Dawn Assassination." New York Times + "CEO assassination..." ABC (local affiliate) + "CEO's assassination..." Newsweek + "...before shooting assassination." Irish Times via MSN + "Thompson’s family was devastated by the news of his apparent assassination." Boston Herald + "...the apparent assassination..." Newsweek (again, but a different article) + "...assassination-style slaying." NYT (again, different article) + "Rep. Dean Phillips, of Minnesota’s 3rd District, wrote that he was '...horrified by the assassination of my constituent, Brian Thompson...'" Representative Phillips via X via CNN
That said, I'm not saying we absolutely should call it that. I would give it a weak support at this time. Given the term's usage in sources, I would see what others think. MWFwiki (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]

Notability?

[edit]

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

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

Birth date?

[edit]

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

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

CCTV footage

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source for calibre?

[edit]

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

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

Requested move 4 December 2024

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local references

[edit]

References

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

Semi-Protection Needed

[edit]

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

 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]

Class Action Lawsuit

[edit]

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

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

Revenge killing?

[edit]

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

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

Need for more information on DOJ / SEC lawsuit

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

Map of Locations from Timeline

[edit]

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

Killing of Brian Thompson

[edit]

Here are possible options:

  • Option #4 - Other suggestions (please elaborate)

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

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

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]

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]

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]

“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]

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]