Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ypn^2 (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 8 December 2024 (→Monopoly money: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Photograph?

Should we include Thompson's photograph in the lead? Firecat93 (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus before taking any actions and doing so -
It depends on this matter. The photo must either be in the public domain, or be under the Creative Commons line. As always, Wikipedia allows non-free content and should be used at a minimum. Please talk with others before making the final decision. ѕιη¢єяєℓу ƒяσм, ᗰOᗪ ᑕᖇEᗩTOᖇ 🏡 🗨 📝 01:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth a shot (no pun intended) to ask UnitedHealth Group if they're willing to release a photograph of him under a free license. They did release a freely-licensed image of Andrew Witty not long ago. Ixfd64 (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article really necessary?

It’s just a copy-paste from the main page. If it really does need to exist it needs to be more than just an exact reprise of the main page assassination info. Asilojaz7 (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it needs to be expanded based on the ongoing coverage. Firecat93 (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firecat93 - As a relatively inexperienced user with less than 700 edits, you have improperly copy and pasted text from the original article. Additionally, it is in conflict with an ongoing discussion about retitling that article to the same type of title that this one has. I've left a note on your talk page. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing this information. I will not make the same mistake in the future, and I apologize for the trouble that this may have caused.
For now, may I link Assassination of Brian Thompson in the Brian Thompson page? It contains significantly more information, including a timeline. I can mention this in the Brian Thompson talk page to generate a discussion about what to do with the Assassination of Brian Thompson page and all of the information in it.   Firecat93 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus christ. If 700 edits is relatively inexperienced im an infant wtf guninvalid (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "less than 700 edits" or "fewer than 700 edits"? @Fuzheado Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and I have also tagged this as an improper copy/paste of content. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the original concern of this post may have been valid at the time of posting, the assassination article now has multiple more detailed sections on aspects of the case that the bio page does not have. I don't think this is an issue any more. Maximilian775 (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is definitely necessary and props to whoever created it. However I am leery about "assassination" in the title. I think "killing" is better. Coretheapple (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it conflicts with the move discussion already at Brian Thompson (businessman) and makes everything messy. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "killing" is better. "Assassination" also doesn't seem to be used by the majority of sources. Cortador (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have zero obligation to follow the wording of sources, particularly weasel wording. I don't care if sources call it a command performance by the National Ballet or whatever. It was a "deliberate killing", a "targeted homicide", an "assassination" or whatever. All of those will do. However... reading Assassination, that looks like the best term.
"Targeted killings" can occur because the person is screwing your husband, or fired you, or has played "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" on her outdoor speakers one time too many, and so on. But these are not assassinations. "Target killing" is overly broad, and the reader is required to drill down to find out that it was an assassination. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" until just now - maybe it was only big in the USA and didn't make it across the pond. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map of Locations from Timeline

If someone experienced in map modeling could use the timeline I have made to create a freely licensable map of the events like those here here here and here that could add a lot to the article. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was seen near the crime scene and he was seen uptown. I don't think that's worth showing on a map, unless this was a situation where there were multiple murders or attacks. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the timeline section of this article and the linked outside news articles in my op? There are a fair number of spotting and movements in the time leading up to the shooting, so many that CBS, Newsweek and Al Jazeera all made maps of their own. Maximilian775 (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I'm skeptical of the value a map would add, though upon further thought I am not opposed to it. Good luck with it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

What image should be used for the infobox photo? Ddellas (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources have since circulated photos of the alleged shooter, though a name has not yet been identified that I have seen. If that photo is ever confirmed, we could use it. guninvalid (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best practice to use a photo immediately before or after the shooting. The photos of the alleged shooter at other locations would be more appropriate in the body of the article. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources aren't calling this an assassination

It was already agreed at Brian Thompson (businessman) that reliable sources aren't referring to this as an assassination, so we shouldn't either. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why this article isn't called an assassination. If you'd like to make a move request, please discuss on the existing move requests in Talk: Brian Thompson (businessman). guninvalid (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guninvalid It was until about 10 minutes ago until I moved it and replaced all uses of assassination in the article (except for one direct quote). I am explaining why I made those changes and making it clear that they shouldn't be reverted. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are:
"...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 being said… I don't believe WP:Assassination supports the title of "Assassination of Brian Thompson." WP supports "killing of…" until either/or a conviction is made (at which point WP:MURDEROF takes us to "Murder of Brian Thompson") or sources begin regularly referring to this as an assassination (looks like it may happen, but it is currently used too sporadically to justify it here, IMO).MWFwiki (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Hostel at 103rd and Amsterdam

This might come in handy - even if it's not the main point of the story here. The news item that drew my attention to the place is at New york Times. about 1:30 pm NY time,

HI NYC Hostel at 104th and Amsterdam, NYC (103rd is the other end of the building, to the right) where suspect was photographed/identified last night according to the latest news release. The photo of the building is not from last night, it's from May 19, 2011, I took it. See Association Residence Nursing Home for more about the building.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Adding now. Maximilian775 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suspect's arrival and departure dates at the hostel has been confirmed by police acording to the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/nyregion/unitedhealthcare-brian-thompson-shooting.html but the photo in our article has been removed. I'll check out the removal in about an hour. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Maximilian775:. And yes, the other pic is better. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Content not properly deflated”

I am trying to add hyperlinks to the article, particularly in the aftermath section, but it won’t let me edit it. Does anyone know what this means? Catboy69 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess you just had an edit conflict, so just try again with your linking. I couldn't find anything to link in the aftermath section to link, but tried linking the title of the book and got a perfectly good redlink. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Killing" or "Assassination"

I believe this article would be best moved to Assassination of Brian Thompson, because this act targeted the CEO of a company, and not a random civilian.

I am not making a Move Request at this time, I'm merely asking why we are using "Killing" instead of "Assassination". Do we need to know the assassin's motive? What information is missing for this event to be called an assassination? It seems like "Killing" inappropriately paints the act as wonton and random, but the use of a silenced weapon, the plan to lie in wait at the specific spot Thompson would be, and the plan to escape feels more like an assassination plan. Please let me know what I am (or the sources are) missing. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobotGoggles See the section #Reliable sources aren't calling this an assassination where I already discussed this. We go by reliable sources. Until/unless the majority of reliable sources the refer to it as an assassination, we should not. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure conjecture on your part. Please refrain from introducing your preconceived biases to the discussion. 136.52.31.24 (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why so many are adamantly opposed to referring to this as an assassination, at least within the body of the article. Sources are indeed using 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' being said… I don't believe WP:Assassination supports the title of "Assassination of Brian Thompson." WP supports "killing of…" until either/or a conviction is made (at which point WP:MURDEROF takes us to "Murder of Brian Thompson") or sources begin regularly referring to this as an assassination (looks like it may happen, but it is currently used too sporadically to justify it here, IMO).
MWFwiki (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection needed

In the same way that Thompson's bio page needed to be semi-protected, this page probably should be too. Maximilian775 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media posts over death

It is widely WP: UNDUE for the article to focus on Reddit & Twitter troll posts surrounding his death. The vast majority of Americans do not have an established opinion of Thompson at all and the posts appear to be a series of gripes about the American healthcare system in general.

The onus is on exclusion until a consensus is established.RomanianObserver41 (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't "focusing" on social media posts at all. It was one or two sentences in a paragraph discussing reactions. Also, the positive reaction to his death has been reported on by many notable publications. I don't know how you can argue otherwise unless you're bothered by the celebration of his murder and are taking this personally. Eseress (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The article does not "focus" on social media posts; there are a few sentences on it, which seems like due weight considering that the social media reaction was covered on the front page of the New York Times. The characterization of anyone as a "troll" is meaningless and unsubstantiated, and therefore an invalid criticism of the text that was removed. Einsof (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would leave some potential sources for a social media reaction paragraph here:
Prater, Nia (December 5, 2024). "The People Cheering the UnitedHealthcare CEO Shooting". Intelligencer.
Dilanian, Ken (December 5, 2024). "Insurance executive's murder sparks online praise and hate". NBC News.
Searcey, Dionne; Kircher, Madison Malone (December 5, 2024). "Torrent of Hate for Health Insurance Industry Follows C.E.O.'s Killing". The New York Times.
Diamond, Den (December 5, 2024). "A health insurance CEO was killed. Why did some people celebrate?". The Washington Post. Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the version of the "Reactions" section you removed was unduly puffed-up and gossipy. However, given that multiple reliable sources have reported these reactions, I believe that they merit a short mention to provide context for the political and cultural climate this shooting took place in. I saw a shorter version of the paragraph discussing online reactions that was only 1 or 2 sentences—I think that would be appropriate. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This revision from earlier today contains what I consider to be a far more appropriately-sized version of the section:
{{Blockquote|In the hours following the assassination, many American social media users shared their celebrations of the event, and contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system.
It could use some copy-editing, and maybe the addition of newer sources, but I think it would be a good starting point. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to a sentence about why there is contempt for Thompson, UnitedHealthcare, and the American health insurance system. Iamnotcapableofthis (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that those posts are ultimately not about Thompson. They're about the American healthcare system. There's many other public figures that have received significant dislike on social media (David Rockefeller, almost any political leader, etc.) that do not have these things mentioned on their respective pages and it seems to be the norm to not include
If a major public figure makes a statement saying so, then yes, I would support mentioning it in the context of the article. I do not believe that Reddit or Twitter posts (or mention of them in news outlets) merits mention. Random people online making statements is not news.
Most Americans have no clue at all who Thompson is, and likely before today: had absolutely no opinion on him at all. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what you personally think. I'll be your first example then: I am glad Brian Thompson, the person, is dead. Eseress (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so many of these posts would have been made within a few hours if it weren't for the shooting, so it makes sense to include them. Also, Henry Kissinger's page includes criticism of him on social media following his death. Iamnotcapableofthis (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This just doesn't seem like a tenable position. Social media is incredibly important nowadays, it is one of the main ways information is disseminated. WP:UNDUE means "don't give a viewpoint, facet, or idea more emphasis than it has in RSes," not "exclude something mentioned by RSes because it feels too Online™." The schadenfreude people expressed in posting about the Titan submersible implosion was also not just about the people who happened to be on the sub—their reactions to the event were a microcosm of their larger attitudes.
You're right that basically no one knew or cared about Thompson before this event, the same way most people didn't care about Stockton Rush before the implosion. Maybe it would be WP:UNDUE to have a section about people celebrating Thompson's death on the "Brian Thompson (businessman)" article, but this isn't the "Brian Thompson (businessman)" article—it's the "Killing of Brian Thompson" article. It's indisputable that people are reacting this way to his death, and it's indisputable that RSes are reporting on it. I see no reason to be so resolutely against including any mention in the "Reactions" section beyond an unreasonable bias against acknowledging social media in articles. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the posts are generally not about Thompson. This article from the New York Times lists five comments mentioning Thompson directly in addition to other comments expressing discontent with the state of the healthcare system. Even if most posts weren't talking about Thompson directly, the public outcry appears to be notable enough for several major news outlets to create articles about the topic. For example, the article on Shinzo Abe's assasination mentions the increased scrutiny of the Unification Church and the Liberal Democratic Party in the public response—not just the public's thoughts on Abe himself. This article deserves a similar section as well. Qbox673 (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I would also propose adding Abe's assassination to the see also section, healthcare companies have already announced changes to their policies similar to the japanese government turning against the Moonies. Its entirely normal for articles on highly publicized killings like this to include a broader context and public reactions. — jonas (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2024

Should the term "killer" be changed to suspect considering it was perpetrated in the United States? TheMason8 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use suspect here in the US, so I think that suspect is ok to use for now - until they capture him & found out who he is. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images of "alleged perpetrator"

Wikimedia Commons is already debating about whether File:Merged CCTV of suspect in Thompson's murder.jpg is a public-domain image.

However, entirely separate from that argument, I don't think an image of an alleged person of interest on this article in the first place. There is no solid public evidence that the pictured person is the shooter, and putting their picture under the subheading "Assailant" could easily cross into defamation, a BLP violation, or even a r/findbostonbombers situation.

I'm going to be bold and remove it from the article, but I'm writing this to explain my rationale so it doesn't get insta-reverted. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, those images were released by the NYPD. I'm fine with them being removed for copyright, but if some witch hunt was to get started, it would be the police's fault and not Wikipedia's. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the moral world doesn't work like that. If thee picture is not the perp and the wrong guy gets lynched, we are (or might be) a link in the chain in the events that led to that event. The NYPD does make mistakes (e.g., murdering someone for selling cigarettes, which I would call a mistake). Herostratus (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A. They still haven’t nailed down a concrete identity of the shooter, so any images should be taken with a grain of salt.
B. As many has pointed out, they look like completely different people united only by the fact that they’re wearing a hoodie.
C. BLPCRIME
D. In the age of body cameras, are we really still considering the police a reliable source? A notable source certainly, but I would not say a reliable one. Snokalok (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, as @Ithinkiplaygames said, an editor could easily add a caption to the image that crosses the line into defamation (eg. instead of "suspect" they write "assailant") Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current event tag

Was there a current event tag on this article, and if not, should one be added? New developments keep happening, so I thought it might be worth asking VDizzleFoShizzle (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible motive?

Is there a link between Thompson's assassination and that bright blue suit he was wearing? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum Catboy69 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Words found on bullets/shell casings

Early articles referencing words found on shell casings gave 3 words, but many sources seem to have reduced to 2 words, "delay, depose", quoting law enforcement sources responding to an earlier article giving 3. No current sources state 4 words, so I think that paragraph under Investigation needs to be updated. Chronoste (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we certain the image on this page, namely "Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV frame 01.png" posted by Silverdrake2008 is usable on wikipedia? RealLibertyEnjoyer (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Bremps... 06:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

There are five or six items listed in the "See also" section. They all deal with various aspects of health insurance. That list seems odd in an article about the murder of Thompson. No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No one has made any link that he was killed due to his work practices."
This is untrue. Many RS have made this link. Firecat93 (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, given the wording on the shell casings... I would think that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is in play here. If you can find me an intelligent, honest, informed, disinterested, and sane human person who can look me in the eye and say that they truly believe that there's any reasonable level of doubt on this, that'd be different maybe. But there is no such person. Herostratus (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Police authorities have consistently said "we don't know the motive". This very article itself says "motive unknown". In any event, the See also section seems to have a lot of (i.e., an inordinate amount of) irrelevant entries about health insurance topics. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entries in the See Also section that you are referring to directly relate to several parts of the article, including the Response section. Firecat93 (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Let's add 20 more! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind? The items listed are directly related to the subject of the article. If you have an argument against the inclusion of a particular entry, please explain. Firecat93 (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Jam”

Didnt he use an integrally suppressed welgun and the "clearing actuon" was just a loading action Whoislogo (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this source says, I'd agree with calling it "reracking" Alpacaaviator (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically all the reporting as to the firearm is speculation of varying levels of expertise. Until more information is released, it's just not sure. Maximilian775 (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "racking" the slide functions to "clear" the spent casing from the breech. They're basically synonymous, it's just a question of whether that is part of the normal operation of the firearm (IE if a welrod or other factory-made integrally suppressed firearm was used) or is a malfunction caused by a modified firearm with a poorly installed, perhaps improvised, silencer. Maximilian775 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, to me the term "cycle" would be more accurate. Going for a balance of what the sources call it and being accurate in terms of terminology. We'll see how information progresses as the investigation goes on. Alpacaaviator (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're basically all synonymous. Out of curiosity, I wonder what user:pbritti thinks as he knows a fair amount about firearms like this I believe. Maximilian775 (talk) Maximilian775 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maximilian775 I think you overestimate me, but I do know just enough to say that the ABC News source statement "Police believe the shooter used a B&T Station Six, known in Great Britain as a Welrod pistol, according to police sources" is an objectively inaccurate description of actual firearms (though it's possible an NYPD official said it or was misunderstood). The B&T is a modern firearm that operates similarly to a Welrod, but they are guns separated by roughly 70 years in terms of production. The B&T is almost certainly not what is being used here, as they are not exactly proliferate and have a different form factor. This is also not a Welrod, as those are absurdly expensive collectors' items and often chambered in .32 ACP (not the 9mm found at the scene). As best I can make out from the footage, it's a conventional semi-automatic pistol that is repeatedly jamming. More accurate information and appraisals are probably forthcoming from other sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a modern comparable one that is not a vintage Welrod, the Brügger & Thomet VP9 and I've seen its model name mentioned a few times. Will be interesting to see. Maximilian775 (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To the bit about cycling, that would probably be the safest term here. Clearling can imply a malfunction, and I don't think we know enough right now to verifiably say "the shooter's gun malfunctioned". I think it did, but I'm not a reliable source. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest keeping the reference that authorities have speculated it's a Station Six, but that this has been disputed by firearm experts.
Extremely knowledgeable experts have disputed the hypothesis that a Station Six, VP9, or Welrod was used. The cycling motion and position of his hand suggests a normal semi-auto handgun with a slide, as does the very large amount of gas coming from the ejection port upon firing. These Weldrod-like pistols do not let notable gas out of the ejection port until you cycle the weapon, and the cycling action is very different from what it shown in footage. The operator's hand should be well behind, not on top of, the weapon to cycle it.
There aren't really all that many Station Six in circulation and they require a Form 4 ATF background check and tax stamp, which requires fingerprints and a photo. Unless it was borrowed/stolen, they would have already been able to quickly match the physical description to the very small number of owners. While it could have been stolen, the odds of that are extremely low given its relatively rare nature.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/POubd0SoCQ8
https://x.com/SciencePew/status/1864782691784143189 jayphelps (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just edited the paragraph about the weapon, and how it seems to malfunction after each shot. I've added an update from the New York Times: Law enforcement was investigating a B&T Station Six pistol sold in Connecticut, this was widely reported with various details. Apparently the buyer was located by law enforcement and is not a suspect. I'm leaving the reference to the B&T Station Six because it garnered a fair amount of attention, and because firearms experts are still discussing it, but often to compare it to a semiautomatic pistol that is failing to cycle, which seems to be a more popular hypothesis right now. The CNN article cited has a lot of detail and analyzes the video, if it doesn't actually discuss both types of pistol action then I can cite an additional source. Fluoborate (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video

The shooting and subsequent killing of United Helthcare CEO Brian Thompson, as seen on security camera positioned outside of a building.

I have uploaded the video of the shooting (right) under a PD-automated rationale, but since this will 100% be disputed, I'll bring up the question: Should this be included in the article? Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored and that while some people may not like it, information here is vital. EF5 15:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I don't much care for "Should this be included in the article? Please remember that if you say 'no' you're a cossack, besides which your personal editorial opinion is no interest here here" tone, colleague. Surely there are better ways to state your case about this particular editorial question. Herostratus (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, chill out. I literally just asked whether this video should be included and a reminder that it is allowed on Wikipedia. Nowhere did I call others a "Cossack". It's a genuine question, and apparently you didn't see that. EF5 17:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on the video upload @EF5 I cannot even begin to understand @Herostratus's reply to you. It's gibberish - but notwithstanding that, it also seems to be very WP:REACTIVE and WP:RUDE. I'm sorry you had to experience that EF5. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, I get messages like that all the time. I've brung it up on their talk page, but anyways, let's keep this on-topic. EF5 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include it. There is no reason not to include the video. And it’s better if people were to see it on a secure site like this versus elsewhere StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, I have bold added it. If it's challenged, then this discussion can be reopened. EF5 19:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, please be civil. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support A public domain video of exactly the event in question is a clear-cut example of good image use. I see absolutely no reason not to include it in the article, aside from the potential fact that a better or more clear video may exist. Departure– (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2024

X = 20 feet should be changed to x = 9 feet.
The assilant was not waiting in front of the Hilton Hotel, but rather in front of the enwly named Luxury Collection Hotel (most recently called The Conrad Hotel). Journey2 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Additional information needed Please provide sources for both of these claims Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have stayed at the same hotel since 1997. I know the surrounding streets like the back on my hand. What has not been reported acturately is that he had only been walking ~18-20 seconds outside his hotel before being shot from behind. The shooter did not shoot from 20 feet, but from a much closer range (~ 9 feet). The shooter exited the area to his left which is NOT an alleyway as reported, but a courtyard. I have passed through this courtyard hundreds of times and have maybe seen 6-9 people in total. Very secluded from a people standpoint. Also highly under-reported. W54th street between 6th and 7th Avenues (even though it is one block away from Broadway and one block away from Avenue of the Americas), is very quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 00:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Key sentences not supported at all by the references given

In the 'Killing' section, the last-two sentences of the first paragraph are not in any way supported by the references that have been provided. I've read both of the referenced news articles and they simply do not support the text of this article at all. "While police have not recovered the weapon, they reportedly believe the shooter used a B&T Station Six or Welrod, a pistol with an integrated suppressor, possibly acquired in Connecticut.[ref-1] This necessary manual cycling could explain the speculation of firearms experts who said the gun appeared to malfunction with each shot.[ref-2]" Ref-1 does not contain the words Connecticut, Welrod, Station, pistol, suppressor, or indeed any specifics of the purported weapon. Ref-2 does discuss the possible malfunctioning of the weapon. But it does not support what is written in this article. There is also a glaring non-sequitur: there is no context to support the transitional sentence beginning, "This necessary manual cycling could...". "Manual cycling" is not previously (or subsequently) mentioned in this article. Whilst I understand that 'manual cycling' might be a feature of the Station Six or Welrod pistols that are mentioned, this connection is completely missing in the article. Not only is the introduction of Station Six or Welrod pistols not supported by the reference given, having erroneously introduced these weapon-types the article moves this speculation into the realm of 'fact' and then employs another phoney-reference to reinforce the "validity" of the unreferenced speculation. It's incredibly messy. Isn't someone in charge here? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold. wizzito | say hello! 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New timeline from NYT

New timeline from NYT contradicts a bunch of what has been said already. I or someone else will need to redo the timeline. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/06/nyregion/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson?unlocked_article_code=1.fU4.U4PP.hVYpA83f8a3A&smid=url-share

  • Arrives at 10:11 p.m. Nov. 24
  • "He took a cab to the New York Hilton and spent about half an hour walking in the area of the hotel before checking into a hostel on the Upper West Side, the chief said."
  • "The gunman left the hostel at 5:30 a.m. on Dec. 4 and rode a bicycle toward midtown, Chief Kenny said."
  • "At 5:41 a.m., he arrived at the Hilton and began wandering the area near the hotel, walking back and forth on West 54th Street, before going into a Starbucks, where he bought a bottle of water and a snack bar."
  • "After shooting Mr. Thompson at 6:44 a.m., he got back on the bike and made it into Central Park four minutes later."
  • "He left the park at 6:56 a.m., still on the bicycle."
  • "Surveillance cameras captured footage of him, still on the bicycle, two minutes later at 86th Street and Columbus Avenue."
  • "By 7 a.m. he was still on 86th street, no longer on the bicycle."
  • "He then he took a cab northbound to a bus terminal near the George Washington Bridge."
  • "By 7:30 a.m. he had made it to the bus terminal, where video surveillance showed him going in but not coming out, Chief Kenny said." wizzito | say hello! 23:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What to make of the claim that he was seen at 5am carrying what appeared to be a bike battery?
Wednesday, 5 a.m. - The suspected shooter was seen on video outside the nearby Frederick Douglass Houses public housing project, carrying what appears to be an e-bike battery, police sources told ABC News.
https://abc7ny.com/post/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killed-timeline-events-led-fatal-shooting-brian-thompson-outside-midtown-hilton-hotel/15624048/
And where in the NYT timeline is his 6:15am emergence from the subway?
6:15 a.m. - Surveillance footage reviewed by police shows someone who appears to be the suspect exiting the subway before the shooting at the 57th Street station on the F line, just blocks from the shooting scene.
https://abc7ny.com/post/unitedhealthcare-ceo-killed-timeline-events-led-fatal-shooting-brian-thompson-outside-midtown-hilton-hotel/15624048/
None of this meshes with either the NYT timeline above, or the current timeline in this article. Someone needs to compose a complete and verified timeline. 24.22.134.45 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FBI poster

I've uploaded to commons the FBI seeking info poster, not sure if we should use it or not. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwiz1338 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had put it in but another user cited WP:BLPCRIME so it looks like we shouldn't include it for now. Alpacaaviator (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images released by the federal government are allowed to be used as fair use (that might not be the technical term). I feel that the WP:BLPCRIME policy is more so related to crimes that are at the scale of local or state law enforcement but since it is also federal I feel that it would be okay to include since the individual is named as the suspect. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a fair use issue and I actually originally added the poster to the page, but after reading WP:BLPCRIME it emphasizes waiting for a conviction. Alpacaaviator (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also

Some of the things in the See Also section seem to be there to support a political agenda. Since we don't yet know the motive of the shooter (the writings on the casings may have been there as a diversion), I think we should remove some (if not all) of these.

Kingturtle = (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingturtle, seem to be there to support a political agenda; WP:AGF, the first 3-4 seem especially relevant given the public response section of this very article, so readers who aren't familiar with US healthcare processes can learn about the subject being discussed as a possible motive for the assailant and for the nexus of many public reactions to the incident. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingturtle To be fair, this event related to healthcare system that's why the See also section had links filled with healthcare related articles. Rager7 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know the motive of the shooter yet. People are leaping to conclusions about the motive. That should not be a reason to add these things to a see also. This article needs to be about the shooting and not about speculation as to why the shooting occurred. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the bullet casings that reads "deny", "defend", and "depose"? Rager7 (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killer Put in Top Info Box

I added "Unidentified Assailant" to the info box because I think that's important info, but I'm not sure if some combination of the above and "unkown" or "perpetrator" would be better. (Also, I'm relatively inexperienced here, so I'm wondering if there is a deliberate reason why my addition had not already been made.) Trilomonk (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP. Let's not mention anything about the alleged/suspected shooter. They are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. "Unidentified shooter" fits best. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Type of weapon - Likely semiautomatic

I've just commented on the "Jam" section of this Talk page, but this is a relatively different topic.

It seems possibly reasonable to include reporting by firearms experts who tend to agree the firearm is probably a semiautomatic 9mm pistol with a suppressor (silencer) added, and it is failing to cycle.

The single most convincing argument is the uncensored video - after the first and second shots, a puff of smoke is visible coming from the breech or ejection port area. Smoke would not exit the breech while firing a Welrod or B&T Station Six, because the breech remains locked while firing. On a semiautomatic pistol, the breech would open while firing, even if it doesn't recoil far enough to cycle the action.

The hand movements to cycle a Welrod or Station Six are also different, they are cycled by twisting and pulling a disc at the back. It's not clear if this would be visible in the video. Some people also claim the visual features of the gun rule out a Welrod or Station Six, but I'm not convinced the video is clear enough to show that, either. Fluoborate (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Straight-pull action. The exact firearm used, at this point, remains unknown. It is conceivable that it was even custom-built for the killing, like the gun that killed Shinzo Abe. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon

ABC News and multiple other sources have identified the weapon as a B&T Station SIX VP9 pistol. Why is this not being added to the infobox? Plectiscus (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a B&T Station 6, that is misinformation, and there is no such thing as a "B&T Station 6 VP9"; as the VP9 is made by Heckler and Koch. It is likely a standard semi-automatic handgun lacking a booster on the suppressor. The Station 6 has is a single shot, with a rotating bolt. The slide does not pull straight back like a traditional handgun. Jrr1221 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed misinformation then ok, but your second statement is incorrect, the Station SIX VP9 is a very real thing. Heckler and Koch does have a pistol called the VP9 (H&K VP9), but so does B&T. The Station SIX is a variant of the B&T VP9, there are not completely different things, and is discussed in the article on it. Plectiscus (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a moot point to be honest, because it's not called "B&T Station Six VP9". There is a "B&T VP9" which has never been sold, imported or produced in the United State; or carried any level of VP9 marketing/naming in the US. So no there is not a "B&T Station Six VP9". It's never carried that name together. They are different variants sold in different markets, with different names. Jrr1221 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images in the response section

If you are going to put images in the response section, please make sure they have to do with the response. I've removed images from that section that are 5 to 15 years old. I've also removed a chart about healthcare statistics. Kingturtle = (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

The reference to Marriott is too ambiguous in the timeline entry: "Thompson leaves the Marriott hotel he stayed at the prior night, heading towards the New York Hilton Midtown hotel"

Suggest that it be changed to "Thompson leaves The Luxury Collection Hotel Manhattan Midtown he stayed at the night before ..."

"The Luxury Collection" should hyperlink to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriott_International#The_Luxury_Collection

Note: the hotel Thompson stayed at was formerly a Hilton Conrad hotel and changed to the Marriott Luxury Collection brand. Gravity slide (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 (2)

The weapon used is not confirmed to be a B&T Station Six, and video evidence supports that it is not. The B&T Station Six is a single shot, manually operated, rotating bolt pistol. None of these traits were displayed in the security footage and is more likely a semi-automatic pistol with a tilt barrel design, with the lack of a suppressor booster.

Change "B&T Station 6 Pistol" to "Suppressed Semi-Automatic Pistol"; source article says "police believe" not a confirmation, and video evidence shows it is likely not the B&T Station 6. Jrr1221 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "Suppressed 9x19mm pistol." With the source saying it "may" be the B&T Station Six, I agree with your request; I'm leaving out the "semi-automatic" since that seems to be a point of debate, at least until we have reliable sources confirming it. With the B&T Station Six being bolt-action, that seems to be contested. Alpacaaviator (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The associated Press is reporting that "Police were looking into the possibility that the weapon was a veterinary pistol, which is a weapon commonly used on farms and ranches if an animal has to be euthanized quietly, Kenny said — though he stressed that hadn’t been confirmed." Middle Mac CJM (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video (again)

User blocked by an administrator, no need to keep this open. EF5 21:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems the addition of the CCTV video has been challenged by @Delectable1:. Why was it removed, and is there consensus to add it? An above discussion indicated that it should have been added, but since it's challenged I'm restarting this discussion. EF5 19:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that the video has been re-added by three separate editors, after Delectable1 has removed it three times - a fourth would be considered a 3RR violation, so I've left a warning on their talk page. Departure– (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The warning has been removed from their talk page, so I'll assume they've read it. Departure– (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the third warning, though. There seems to be consensus to keep the CCTV video. EF5 20:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus. You just posted this, what is your rush?Delectable1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep petitioning to keep the video off the article, but haven't given a single reason as to why. That's why I see consensus to keep. EF5 20:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors have reinstated the video, and two more have declared their support for it's inclusion. On the other hand, you seem to be the only one in opposition to it's inclusion, and don't give any reason - hence, inclusion to keep. Please do not remove it again - you're already at 3RR and this doesn't need to be an entire edit war. Departure– (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You two know each other to some extent. For some reason you want this video posted. I have not even begun to protest your actions. You both are unusual and try to throw weight around. That doesn't work here. Delectable1 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more editors at this time who think the video should remain. Please explain in detail why you think it should not be in the article. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not belong for many reasons. There is already a CCTV still on the page. Wikipedia does not customarily post such content. A debate should be held over the content of the video, the relevance to it being posted, whether it should be edited. (Personal attack removed) Delectable1 (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the latter part of that as a personal attack directed at both of us. EF5 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SILENTCONSENSUS and WP:SNOW. If four editors are in favor and express it via reinstating content and even stating it on the talk page then consensus is achieved, whether or not a formal discussion occurs. Departure– (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Despite the Health insurance companies' removal of their leadership pages...

...their leadership pages complete with the names and pictures of the corporate executives are still available and preserved on the Internet Archive. I was going to add that fact to the article, but due to its protected status and my lack of interest in creating an account, someone else here with an account can do that instead. Would you please? Thanks. --2600:100A:B055:6AA6:7018:B0F6:5D9:10A1 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what can be done. After all, they're notable public figures. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of shooting video

Wow, rare footage of a modern killing of a high-power individual in stunning grainy, heavily-compressed 360p!

You can barely see what's going on. I've seen in it in higher quality, but during the intense media storm, it's hard to come by anything specific without spending hours on it. If anyone comes across a high-resolution version, please let me know, or just go ahead and replace the video file. LesbianTiamat (She/Her) (troll/pester) 02:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the most bikeshedding thing ever, but...

I'm interested to hear others' thoughts about this: right now, we refer to the suspect with masculine pronouns throughout the article owing to the police describing them as a white man. However, is it correct – given what we know about them is minimal – to take a police statement which identifiers the assailant's likely sex and use that to identify their gender? Is it possible that instead of using "he/his", we should be using "they/their" since we don't really know? I'm sorry if this is genuinely the dumbest thing ever; it just got me thinking. I could honestly land either way on this, which is why I brought it up here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VNT. Reliable sources refer to him as a male and I've seen nothing to challenge that, unless of course the actual perpetrator were to come forward and say otherwise, which seems unlikely. Departure– (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. When I checked a few articles, I hadn't seen pronouns used for the suspect at all, but now that I'm reading ABC News' and BBC News' from the 'Assailant' section, I see now that they use those pronouns. Seems good to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're supposing the circulating image of the smiling man is the assailant (which is the present consensus), and the hostel clerk that spoke with the subject has affirmed that he is male, I think that's enough rationale to stick with male pronouns for now. BenjaminKZ Talk 02:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly money

I don't think the image of Monopoly money is beneficial to the article, it's not the money found in the bag, it's just the photo from the Monopoly money article. If readers want to know what Monopoly money looks like, they can click on the link to that page. I'm going to WP:Be bold and remove it, but I'm posting this in the talk page so if someone disagrees they can talk about it here. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct. ypn^2 04:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&oldid=1261829864"