Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman)

Is the article framing justification?

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)

@IronMaidenRocks

well, it IS part of "his career history". L.Willms (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

A chart of industry-wide denial rates has nothing to do with his personal biography and its inclusion is suggesting connections to his killing. Removed as WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. This is a POV lead and I see that it's gone. Coretheapple (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed it from the lede. Wildly WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. If he is to have a biography, the lede should be simple and about him. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then propose deletion. I will support it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

As I read it today, it assumes he was an amazing person who liked helping people. None of that is fact. 2600:6C56:207F:EB9C:805A:7710:A40:AC89 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

I agree. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"while he was leader" still doesn't mean he personally directed those decisions. Masem (t) 01:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No need to state that he did. State what the sources say. The reader can put 2 and 2 together. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@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.

Thus I claim that biographical data does have significance to an encyclopedia, even though it may be more or less significant to some people than others. CombinatoriallyPlastic (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

There was no suggestion that any standard biographical information should be removed. --Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"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.

Wikipedia should not be censored because of some person's weak, unsubstantiated statements that are based on "opinion". CombinatoriallyPlastic (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

DUI

Should this be added to personal life section? https://www.thedailybeast.com/slain-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-was-secretly-separated-from-wife-paulette/

https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F252f21ea-d1fc-45d3-a845-3687adc827f4_1190x1342.png

Dpasten (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that's gossipmonger and BLP still applies. Masem (t) 14:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The DUI speaks to a pattern of callous recklessness and criminality. Added to the article. — The Anome (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

"pattern of callous recklessness and criminality" that is an incredible example of WP:POV and not at all supported by the evidence. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Seconding ZimZalaBim. Near-extreme levels of non-neutrality is going-on in this discussion. Which is fine, as long as it remains in the discussion. What Zim believes to criminal, or "reckless, callous, or endangering" is irrelevant to Wikipedia, so why is Zim being asked what they think of these things? If the argument is that "this should be included in the article," I don't take issue with a single sentence noting his conviction and the precise nature of it, but nothing more than that. I don't think that it is "trivial," but we also don't need to try to make it out to be more than it is. MWFwiki (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

If you have a few drinks, then get in a car and drive. You are now (a) a criminal, having broken the law, and (b) recklessly, callously, endangering others, who you risk maiming or killing with your selfish act. @ZimZalaBim: do you dispute either of those statements? If so, why?

Killing with a car achieves exactly the same result as killing with a gun; just because you did it for a bit of relaxing fun, and the primary purpose of a car is not killing, does not excuse an act with such predictable consequences. — The Anome (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a huge POV take. Masem (t) 14:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

And note, the source states notes he had a "criminal record" based on public records, but doesn't explicitly say he was "arrested and convicted" - one could have a record without an arrest, and also could plead without a conviction. We need to be more careful with such claims. I'm removing this in the meantime until can find a better source or use better wording. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Beast says he was convicted of fourth degree driving while impaired. Big deal. It's trivial and does not belong in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? It is routinely included in personal life sections in other articles. Examples include Wayne Rooney#Drink-driving conviction, George_W._Bush#Alcohol_abuse, Kiefer_Sutherland#Legal_issues, Justin_Timberlake#Legal_issues, Khloé_Kardashian#Legal_issues. Surtsicna (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty confident that all those are completely unnecessary along with other bloat into legal issues sections. Masem (t) 01:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

In all the instances you cite, alcohol abuse was part of a pattern of behavior resulting in multiple encounters with the law. In the case of Thompson, it was a one-off. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That does not appear to be true. No other "encounters with the law" are mentioned in the articles about Bush and Timberlake. Thompson had more encounters than either of them, as he later got sued for fraud and insider trading. Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That is absolutely not an appropriate way to consider such aspects for BLP. That is, there is no connection between the DUI and the insider trading charge (which involved more than just him), so trying to compound them is a BLP violation. Masem (t) 21:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, who is trying to compound? I did not suggest any edit to that effect. I am correcting the assertion that that the aforementioned people had "multiple encounters with the law" and that Thompson had "a one-off". Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

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)