This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I think some of the information on the page seems like an introduction to a justification for the killing. The chart on denials by company, for example. It seems to lean heavily into covering the negative things Brian Thompson was involved in, in such a way as that it looks like his death was inevitable, in my opinion. Maybe the article could contextualize this information in the public reaction / legacy section. I think this is especially important given that the article was made after the man died, but the information that seems to be framing why he was killed is not put in the section related to his death but is part of information on his career history. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this article us going out of it way to include several aspects related to corporate management to try to justify notability but is making this even a worst BLP violation when we still haven't established a motive. — Masem (t) 16:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. However, the framing of the coverage is being made by the sources. We're not synthesizing but we need to be alert to synthesis and overemphasis. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine because it's being presented in the sources as reasons for the attack, not because they're pivotal to his life story. Yours is a way of seeing it that I hadn't considered, but that kind of information, I think, should go into the section on his death or one on the public reaction if it reopens. Unless a reliable source really does attribute denials and other industry ethics issues to him as a matter of personal character or agenda. Even then, it would likely be appropriate to say who holds such an opinion rather than to include it directly in the narrative. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much this. As best understood, the motive was aimed at the business practices by UHC, some of which may have been decisions of Thompson, but since he was only CEO since 2021, cannot be entirely his fault. He appears to be targeted not because of the type of person he was, but simply he represented the head of the proverbial snake to the suspect. The overloading of this article with excessive details of the business of UHC is a coatrack here, and far better suited on the event article since that's all consider part of the motive. Masem (t) 18:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The quandary here is that prior to his death he received (as best as I can determine) little coverage in reliable sources. The coverage since then has been colored by his assassination. However, I don't believe it's coatracking to include such coverage, either in effect or intent. Nor do I think that the coverage smears Thompson or violates BLP. It's simply a case in which his death focused attention on certain aspects of his life that previously did not receive extensive attention. Coretheapple (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this, in the lead:
"His tenure as CEO was marked by rocketing profits as medical care became increasingly denied. In 2021 the American Hospital Association criticized Thompson for planning to deny insurance payment for non-critical visits to hospital emergency rooms. Under Thompson's leadership the company started using artificial intelligence to automate claim denials."
This does not belong in the lead (it would probably be fine in the appropriate place in the body. Particularly unsourced. At most I think mentioning that his tenure was controversial is enough (I'm sure we can find a source that states this). MWFwiki (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these statements would you say is untrue, or not supported by cite-supported statements elsewhere in the article? Or are you saying that putting them together one after another is creating a false narrative? As far as I can see, that juxtaposition reflects the presentation of facts in the majority of articles in WP:RS that are critical of his work (although I didn't know about the AHA thing).
As for not being related to his life, I can't see how his primary career achievement (the profits) and its means (the claims denials), and other people's reaction to them, are not relevant to his life, and thus his biography. — The Anome (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a lede statement, its far too much synthesis of the motive of his killing. We do not yet know if the shooter targeted Thompson specifically for what Thompson did, or simply because he was the CEO of a company that overall took actions the shooter did not like. As such, trying to ascribe his shooting as a result of what Thompson did, in the lede, is pushing it. If we ultimately learn the shooter did target Thompson specifically for his policies, then that would be different, but right now, the best we know now is that the shooter was upset at the system as a whole, not any signal individual within that system. Masem (t) 13:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Anome. The lead summarizes the article per Wikipedia:LEAD ("identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"). Everything in it is cited to reliable sources. No connection whatsoever is made in the lead between the subject's career and his killing. If you see such a link, please point to it here. Reducing the lead section of an article of this size and prominence to a single sentence is unhelpful and inappropriate. Surtsicna (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything the fact that the stuff in the lede focused only on what are perceived as anti-consumer actions under his tenure is channelling the reader to try to rationalize why he was killed. There might be a way to discuss his tenure as CEO at UHC in a neutral manner but it should absolutely not be setting the stage for the implicit "and that's why he was killed" implication. Masem (t) 12:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the truth is the truth. I think his murder was absolutely wrong, but hiding the "justification" for the killing, no matter how ludicrous it is is not the way to handle the issue. What was missing for me, were stats. If there were a lot of denials, then tell us us how many per ____. Tell us what the industry norm was at the time. I think the aticle needs more facts, including stats. 67.187.185.209 (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And to add, if it does turn out that his specific actions are why his killer chose to kill him, rather than just the killer's frustrations at UHC and the insurance industry as a whole (as it appears currently), then it might make sense, since we can then say he was killed for those reasons. But without that as a clear demonstrated motive, it's definitely drawing the reader to a SYNTH conclusion. Masem (t) 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is the fault of the article, not the lead; the lead as it is summarizes the content of the article. Of course, if you can summarize it better, do so, or make some concrete proposals. Surtsicna (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article has several major BLP problems, as because he was not notable before his death, overloading this as a BLP with all the corporate facets (even those he may have been responsible for) is trying to justify the rationale for the killing. I will still stand by the fact that BLP1E should still apply here, even with all the stuff that has come after his death, and a brief bio is better under the Killing event article, where there, explaining all the corporate matters and possible connections to the death is better. Masem (t) 14:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that this needs to be a standalone article either. The only reason the article exists is because he got killed in the street. It's very much WP:SINGLEEVENT. But if the article does exist, and we define him as "an American businessman", it should not gloss over his business practices, which are widely discussed in the most reputable media. At the same time care should be taken not to discuss stuff that are not directly related to him. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this as a separate article, it is absolutely fair to include what he did on the business side, but it has to be written neutrality and not lead to a synthesis that it was his policy choices that led to him being killed. So far, the issues at UHC all appear to be things taken under his tenure but do not yet fully demonstrate that he had full direction of those steps; eg just because UHC started using AI to process claims, which likely he did have to sign off on, it should not be taken as a criticism of him unless it clearly can be shown he directed to have that policy in place. That's why there's a lot of coatracking that we have to be careful for its inclusion; if we only had the event article with a brief bio, then all these aspects about the UHC practices clearly make sense since they are things the company did as a whole, and which appear to be part of the suspect's motive. Masem (t) 15:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough coverage in reputable media to sort all of that out. If there are claims in the article that do not check out, name them and discuss them. If the article ever states anywhere that he was killed because of his business practices before reliable sources say so, bring it up here and discuss it. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't explicitly state that, but the article is written in a manner that readily puts a reader onto a path for that conclusion. It also doesn't help that most of the sources being used for criticism of the company are based on post-death reports, which have been trying to draw out rationales for why the CEO was targeted (but not yet explicitly connecting anything the CEO specifically did to the motive) Masem (t) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the problem, in your opinion, is that the facts about the subject's career are followed by the statement that he was killed. I do not know what could be done about that. Surtsicna (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "facts" of his career are tainted by the coverage about his career nearly all coming from sources talking about his killing and the possible motives for it, a common problem for BLP1E. Its why it still doesn't make sense to have a separate article on the person when there's almost nothing about him not connected to the killing published before that happened. Masem (t) 13:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest holding off until after the holidays, so that people can give it their undivided attention. I will !vote to merge with the "killing" article for the reasons I've indicated elsewhere. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to wonder myself if we need a separate article. I disagree about notability, and I think we need a guideline for business executives, but his notability at the current time is tied directly to his killing and we have an article about that. If an RM were commenced on this point again I suspect I'd favor a merge. Enough is enough. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement that the notability argument for Brian Thompson is extremely weak, and in the end almost everything discussed here will be covered better at the killing article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've flip-flopped on this and suggested patience. OK. Time has gone past. What I think we've found is yes, there is ample reliable sourcing for a separate article but that this reliable sourcing belongs even more in the "killing" article. So therefore we either continue to wrestle with this duality, wasting a great deal of time, or we just merge this article into that one. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP article makes it clear that the emergency room visit stuff was 1) not unique to UHC and 2) unrelated to Thompson personally. If he had made a crusade of it or something like that it was another matter, but what happened at UHC during his tenure is simply not sufficient to include in the article, especially the lead. This is an article about Thompson personally and should not be a coatrack for things positive or negative that happened during his tenure as CEO. Coretheapple (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article being about "Thompson personally" does not mean it should be about what sports he liked to watch on TV. The coverage of Thompson in reliable sources invariably discusses what happened at UHC during his tenure as CEO because he was the CEO. We cannot have an article about a businessman without discussing the practices his business had during his leadership. The letter was addressed to Thompson, and is mentioned in the AP article about Thompson, so the idea that it is somehow not related to Thompson or relevant in a biography of Thompson strikes me as quite odd. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We absolutely can have "an article about a businessman without discussing the practices his business had during his leadership" if there's no clear line that said practices were a direct result of his leadership. We must be careful about attributing decisions at a huge corporation as part of the personal story of its leader. There are cases where the leader impacts broad decisions, of course, but we need to be cautious. I feel much of what gets inserted in this article is the opposite of cautious. --ZimZalaBimtalk23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the things that happened at UHC were due under specific direction of Thompson, that might make sense (for comparison, how Musk has run Twiiter/X is well established to be directly attributed to what he wanted, so documenting that on his bio page makes sense). When the connection between what UHC is being criticized for and what have led to the killing, and what exact decisions that Thompson made is unclear, it can become inappropriate to cover that criticism in that much detail on the bio page. Masem (t) 23:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the letter was addressed to Thompson as CEO. The article makes that clear, and it does not connect Thompson personally with the specific acts detailed in the letter. True, he is responsible for them. But magisterially (I think that's the word) not personally. UHC is not a corner deli. It's an immense operation. We mustn't pad this article with things that don't belong in a BLP, and simply relate to every good or bad thing that happened to UHC on his watch. Coretheapple (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The personal story of the leader as told by reliable sources invariably includes the said business practices. The content of the article should reflect the coverage of the subject by the most reputable sources, and this obviously includes the things that went down at UHC while he was its leader. Rather delete the article than whitewash it into complete irrelevance. Nobody comes here to learn what high school he graduated from. Surtsicna (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many, or most, people in the position of CEO of a large corporation often do not create policy, or have any type of direct influence or interest in, or necessity, to be involved in __directly__ MANAGING the company. These people tend to be involved in more abstract aspects of the business, like delegating authority to their under-dogs, and signing off on decisions their underdogs (the lower-managment people; non-executives) may advocate, for example.
An example I remember reading (many 15 years ago), is of one executive of an oil company who personally (at his own safety?) addressed protestors against his company's activities. He claimed he had no idea what his own company was doing, in regards to poluted the environment. Being an executive meant dealing with activities outside the domaine of overseeing the dirty business of oil (I worked on the ass-end of the oil undustry, at one time, as a summer job). The plant I worked in was responsible for the end-processing of the crude oil rail-roaded to us from Alberta. This plant blew-up, more than once, causing deaths. They paid well, but I'm lucky I was determined to have a university debt of an education, than having a well paying job. Nobody of authority (an executive) ever visited the plant, much less the workers, as far as I know. This ONE example is anecdotal, but is at least as relevent as trying to find a citation to backup my opinion/observation. Anyone can find a citation to backup their arguments. In jurisprudence, this is known as common law (precidence) based on "case law".
In terms of dictating decisions, he at least condoned them, even implicitely by not being directly involved or even informed of the decisions that a CEOs implicit "leadership" implies, even though many CEOs many deal with other CEOs in term of making deals, corporate take-over attempts, conglomerations. CEOs are often out-of-touch with the often very significant details of what their company actually does. Being de-facto leaders, they should be. Because, often, nobody in a large company can be easily and legally be defined as "responsible". There are often non-executive scape-goats, or merely the LLC corporation, conveniently deemed a legal person, is held responsible. Because oil tankers can't be put it jail, they get to pay a few billione dollars as compensation for the criminal activity of the legal fiction of a corporation.
I hope I'm educating more than ranting. I don't have 2 cents; so I can't claim to give you my two cents. My government has largely given up on REAL/tangable currency over cyber-currency. CombinatoriallyPlastic (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna "Nobody comes here to learn what high school he graduated from." Citations needed. Where did you get this unverified fact from?
Also, as a counterbalance to your argument against using biographical data. Wikipedia does in fact have a long history of using biographical data, including insignificant data, like pictures of a person's signature, which reveals nothing about the significance of sed person.
Also; using pictures of people is also not significant to their achievements. Unless it is. One white American president may be just another white person, but a non-white American president may be more significant. But even then, a picture of President Obama is not nescessary to describing his significance. However, a picture of President Obama, or any other American president may be of interest to a Wikipedia user, however socially or historically insignificant a headshot of any person may be, outside that of a doting mother.
Just a note that fundamental biographical data is fine, what usually is the problem is that editors scour inappropriate sources to find that information, like using court documents. When the fundamental biographical data comes from independent reliable sources (which is the case here) that's fine. However, key is that fundamental biographical data is not considered an aspect of notability, since that's data that would exist for any individual. — Masem (t) 14:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why "using court documents" is considered "inappropriate". Excuse my naitivity, but I would consider "court documents" to be reliable, insofar as the legal system seems to be anal-retentive in what is correct procedure, like in regards to giving evidence, making objections, etc.
And how easy is it for an average person to actually obtain court documents? And perhaps more significantly, what type of court documents? I know that even a defendent (in the Canadian legal system), is expected to pay for their own (criminal) disclosure. In fact, the defentent is, in my experience dealing with the judicial bureacoray, defendents, I have been told while trying to access my own disclosure(s) are not even entitled to have access to their own disclosures, because only (licensed) lawyers (working for the defendent/the accused) are meant for such things. NOTE: I have ALWAYS managed to get my disclosure(s), even without the mandatory (admininstrative) payment. I must be pretty good at convincing people; a sort of salesman aptitude. I say this with a prejudicial and self-biased type of pride, when it comes to "fighting"/advocating for myself. To admit one's biases is better than defending them (without the transparency of context).
However, even disclosures have been obviously and deliberately censored/obfuscated from me through methods of, for example, using propriatary software that is only sold to police organizations, to view "evidence" from, for example, CCTV footage, and police body-cam footage, which is easy enough to be redacted, and even DENIED without going through an often expensive and time-expense process (time = money, and if you're in jail without being prosecuted, called "remand", yaddah, MY FRUSTRATION WITH the LAW ENFORCEMENT process is MY bias). The court system is a farse. But that's just one point (regarding "court documents", and their validity as a source of information for an encyclopedia, like WikiPedia); how can any normal person even get access to court records, and what type of court records are you refering to?
I've been pondering this idea, so please excuse my belated question. I'll restate for clarity: Why are "court documents" deemed "inappropriate", and equally as relevent; exactly WHAT KIND/TYPE of court records would be deemed irrelent (for inclusion, or as a reference, to an encyclopedia)?
Thank you (I know my comments/enquiries can be more than a bit-of-a-read). But.. I hope you know that more information is better than less information. Sort of like I'd rather be over-informed than under-informed. And I hope an adequate answer should be placed in a type of general knowledge section for Wikipedia editors. My reasoning is that people besides me will learn from your experiences. And this would both justify and avoid relatively lengthly diatribes that some people may be inclined to merely gloss over.
It is specifically called out to not use court documents to support claims related to a BLP, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Most court records are claims and accusations made by either side of the court case, so are not factual. (For example, specifically in this case, the claim that UHC is using AI to deny medical claims is only a claim in the current lawsuit against the company, which doesn't mean its is true. Even if the case is found against UHC, we'd not say "UHC used AI to deny claims", but that "A court found UHC guilty of using AI to deny claims") Masem (t) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I think some of the information on the page seems like an introduction to a justification for the killing." This is an opinion based argument.
What you, or anybody may "think" is irrelvent. You also vaguely state that "the information on the page seems like". This is another opinion based argument that is based solely on the vaguely stated biases of inherent in the author's statements.
"It seems to lean heavily...". Another vague, opinionated, biased statement.
"... covering the negative things Brian Thompson was involved in". Deleting an article based on a person whose primary inclusion into Wikipedia involves, very inherently, this person's unethical and criminal activities; and importantly, his leadership role in these activities, being the CEO of the largest health insurance provider in America. This person is very significant public figure for what he has done, what he has decided not to do, and the results of his actions. The fact that most (or all) news media outlets have mentioned this person numerous times, and the serveral weeks; and the fact that he is also a very popular discussion item on various diverse social networking platforms demonstrates his social significance.
"... in such a way as that it looks like his death was inevitable, in my opinion.". Again, an opinion, based on the fact that somebody does not want anything negative said about a person who did VERY significantly negative things, is merely and nothing more than an opinion. Personal opinions are of no value to an encyclodedia that values fact, and the cultural significance of sed fact, over an unsubstantiated opinion/opinions.
The argument regarded (artificually) demarcating this person's "career" history from the apparent motives of his death, are in fact trying to reframe this person-of-interest's life, to use the OP's own words; "reframe". The OP is infact attempting to not merely "reframe" the article in question, but is attempted to have it deleted altogether. This is a very extreme attempt of censoring contemporary history into what the OP even admits is because of his "opinion".
This story has been down-played by media, with their own pro-business biases. It should be cautianary to be aware of political shills and trolls that have been well funded, often by foreign actors, like Russia, China, India, and QAnon.
Why does the blurb about opinion polling only state that 41 percent of young Americans found Thompson's killing acceptable and not that 68 percent of all Americans found his killing unacceptable? The latter datapoint is taken directly from the sources cited at the end of the "young American respondents" blurb. 2601:19B:4000:428A:81F1:8E5F:E20B:924D (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
