This is an archive of past discussions about Killing of Brian Thompson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 5 days ago13 comments9 people in discussion
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)
@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 | Talk15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Key sentences not supported at all by the references given
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)
– In the cca 48 hours since the starting of this talk section, the section of the article has been edited to the point that the observations made are no longer relevant. —Alalch E.21:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Video (again)
Latest comment: 4 days ago13 comments4 people in discussion
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. EF519:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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. EF520:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
“Content not properly deflated”
Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)
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)
“Jam”
Latest comment: 18 hours ago32 comments14 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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.
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)
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)
The Welrod and Brügger & Thomet VP9, as both speculated by police and news outlets to be the weapon, are not straight-pull actions. They use a rotating bolt. I don't think there exists a combination straight-pull action manual/bolt-action pistol. Just looks like he's clearing jams on the video. SmittenGalaxy|talk!00:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
he probably used a glock with a shitty suppressor, and that supressor didn't have a nielsen device (most likely DIY) so the gun wasn't cycling properly 86.31.166.252 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Ok I didn't order it exactly correctly good for you to notice but like you said there are variants of the B&T VP9 and he could have used one of those. The face that it was never imported to the US is irrelevant as for all we know he could have brought it in overseas. Plectiscus (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@LesbianTiamat: Hi, about your recent edit re gun: Not contesting anything you've done. "Veterinary pistol" is an intentionally tongue-in-cheek name for the initial version of a particular model of a very literal assassin gun by the marketing-savvy Swiss gun manufacturer Brügger & Thomet. While a commercial product, it was not available to individuals in the USA because it's too much of an assassin's gun, detachable grip and all (intended to make the actual gun part of the gun look like an indistinct black tube, often said to resemble a bicycle pump). Then they made a more sellable variant with some non-crucial technical differences, the most obvious one being that the grip doesn't separate from the gun (but they've marked where to cut the plastic tho). This variant which can be bought by individuals in the USA is called Station SIX-9. VP9 (the "veterinary pistol" ... ha-ha) and the Station SIX are just two iterations of the same product. When the media talk about the so-called veterinary pistol they talk about either version of this company's assassin pistol. The police are talking about the latter version which is actually available to individuals in the USA because the chance that the shooter had the initial can't-get version is astronomically low. In my opinion the words "veterinary pistol" should not exist in this article unless it becomes clear that the weapon used was B&T VP9, and maybe not even then (should probably just say "B&T VP9").—Alalch E.01:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Probably worth mentioning for some perspective that VP9, the original "veterinary pistol" (it's important to remember that this name is an official joke by the manufacturer), was sold in parts kits in small numbers and was being bought as a collector's item in the NFA gun market (drastically harder to obtain than a consumer gun). Before it ran out of stock, it cost something like $5000. So if it were this exact gun (i.e. the original variant), that would really be extraordinary. Much less so if its Station SIX-9. It's also good to remember that this original variant called the "veterinary pistol" is more of an assassin's pistol by virtue of its features than the latter Station SIX-9, and the latter is almost explicitly called "assassin's gun" because Station SIX appears to be a play on Station IX, the place where they made James Bond-like assassin stuff during World War II, including the spiritual predecessor of this product, Welrod. So whenever you see media outlets repeating the phrase "veterinary gun" in a context that may suggest that this is something used on farms, it's just the journalist not understanding the joke. —Alalch E.02:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
As someone who is not super knowledgable about guns this is extraordinarily amazing contextual information. I wish the news would interview you ( @Alalch E.) lol. Part of me kinda hopes it is the original variant just for the surrealness. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Still, if this was not the weapon (and it turns out that the gun was a jamming semi-automatic pistol), then this information is not contextual information :) I think User:Pbritti and User:Jay Phelps made good comments above, near the start of this section. —Alalch E.14:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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 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.
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Images of "alleged perpetrator"
Latest comment: 5 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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.
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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.
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.
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)
Images in the response section
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2024 (2)
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
FBI poster
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
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)
Despite the Health insurance companies' removal of their leadership pages...
Latest comment: 4 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
...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)
Latest comment: 4 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)
This might be the most bikeshedding thing ever, but...
Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
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. BenjaminKZTalk02:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Monopoly money
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The second two paragraphs in the Background section seem to be more related to Brian Thompson the person himself (2nd Paragraph) and UnitedHealthcare the company itself (3rd Paragraph) and I suggest that they be moved to their respective articles. As a clear motive is identified in the future this info may be relevant to include but for now I think it should be removed to avoid any WP:COMBINE issues. Middle Mac CJM (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2024
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
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)
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)
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)
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Multiple sources have been discussing Andrew Witty's comments on the shooting and public response, specifically a leaked video of him criticizing the public sentiment against Brain Thompson's death and United Health increasing security as a direct result:
Given his proximity to the case and relation with Thompson, they might be worth adding. There are more critical sources floating around of Witty's message, including some that criticize it directly, but I've avoided putting them here since they are not likely relevant enough and could run afoul with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. In all fairness, calling Willy's leaked message 'controversial' would likely suffice but it's a rather moot point in my eyes.
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
The assailant's identity seems pretty essential to (at least the reporting of) the case here. Going by the principle that Wikipedia should be an unbiased reflection of society I think the article and its info box should include the fact that the perpetrator is still at large. If authorities make arrests, then obviously we should be tactful in describing the suspects identity but as is I stand by my edit. Trilomonk (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Claim Denial Graphic
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The graphic caption says "Claim denial rates by insurance companies, as of December 5, 2024" however, that's inaccurate. That's when the user downloaded the graphic. If you go to the source URL linked in the graphic, it says "Company claim denial rates are based on CMS Transparency in Coverage public-use files (PUFs) downloaded on March 1, 2024, covering the period from Jan. 1, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022." So those claim denial rates are as of the year 2022, not 2024. -- Datareader29 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Concerns about edits by user:wikiuser815
Latest comment: 3 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion
All citations provided point to a widespread positive public opinion to Brian Thompson's death. Additionally this user is removing work that has been correctly cited. Article should be reverted to user:ich revision. Aqaz110 (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Why is the description of the reactions to the death described as being mixed? By any objective metric the reactions to his death have been overwhelmingly positive. 12:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.238.248 (talk)
Absolutely agree. The citations also support the positive reaction to his death. This is vandalism by user:wikiuser815 and should be reverted. Aqaz110 (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
While the Sanders quote is about healthcare reform, he did not say it in response to the killing. Please keep it out of the response section. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Reminder: Images in the response section
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you are going to put images in the response section, please make sure they have to do with actual responses to the killing. I've removed images from that section that are 5 to 15 years old. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@RomanianObserver41, I noticed in your edit that a couple of inline references were removed from the paragraph beginning with "Within days, ...". This looks like it was accidental, but I would like to double check if this was on purpose or not. (If it was an accident, I think it would be best to add those references back - that paragraph could use more citations). Thanks for your edit! -- WrenFalcon (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Photo of shooter
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Slapped the article with a current events tag. NYPD are releasing frequent updates regarding the manhunt for the killer, such as possible whereabouts, CCTV images, etc. New information is being released daily. Synorem (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 days ago16 comments10 people in discussion
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 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)
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)
I thought I would leave some potential sources for a social media reaction paragraph here:
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)
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.
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.
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)
I think most people are glad he's dead. I sure am. And I think that that's relevant. The fact that so many Americans, a majority of those aware of it I would wager, are celebrating his assassination is absolutely worthy of emphasis. This sort of groundswell is the sort of thing that tends to indicate a massive shift in the trajectory of popular opinion. It indicates a rejection of, or a least a cynicism about, our system and its mechanisms for ensuring proper redress of grievances. This is unquestionably worthy of mention on Wikipedia. If it isn't mentioned now, it'll damn sure be mentioned the next time some CEO gets put down. George Mucus (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
"I think most people are..."
"I would wager"
"I sure am"
What you "think" or "would wager" does not matter and is irrelevant unless you can provide reliable sources (e.g. a poll by a distinguished polling organization). Otherwise, while we can reference some of the coverage and prominent reactions to the event, we wouldn't be able to make a claim about what "most" people or Americans think or believe. Firecat93 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 (2)
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Change "In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients' denied healthcare." to "In particular, Thompson's death was compared to the harm or death experienced by clients denied healthcare." The apostrophe included erroneously alters the meaning of the sentence, making 'healthcare' the subject of the sentence experiencing harm or death. BrokeBoneGrinder (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Ownership of Content
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
It seems that User:Firecat93 has been reverting justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version that removes content that has anything to do with the Social media reaction to the shooting because, according to edit summaries, they think it is subjectively "irrelevant", "improper", "not relevant", "irrelevant x2", "irrelevant", "not worthy of inclusion" without claiming how the change is detrimental. Firecat93 doesn't refersto relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Using all caps when reverting a reversion and accusing another redditor of adding irrelevant information twice in one edit summary borders on WP:PA.
See bullet points 2, 3, 4 and 6 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Firecat93 has also added an image of Bernie Sanders at a 2017 press conference to a section that may or may not have relevance to the page, but the edit summary that it does have "relevance" to a section that does not mention BErnie Sanders feels like a thought terminating cliche. There is voluminous WP:RS out there about the public reaction to the suspect's resemblance to Timothee Chalamet, and the unwillingness of internest sleuths/crowdsourced investigators to find the suspect, but Firecat93's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR has had a chilling effect on my willingness to post any of them. I'm asking for a WP:CONSENSUS on whether these observations have merit or not. Kire1975 (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I honestly do appreciate it, and If you had personally reached out to me about your concerns, I would have also responded agreeably. Nevertheless, I am grateful that you've shared your concern here.
I do believe that it's unfair to say that I have been acting to "protect a certain version that removes content that has anything to do with the Social media reaction to the shooting". There is still plenty of existing content in the article about the public and social media reaction in the Reaction section. I did, however, remove a few portions. Given that you've shared this concern, if any of these portions are added back again, I will not remove them once more. I hope that this commitment will resolve this issue.
At the same time, here's why I made the changes you referred to:
I removed the references to the look-alike contest, "assailant" (should be referred to as suspect, not assailant, which was how suspect was mistakenly referred to in the article) resemblance to Timothee Chalamet, and observations by online 4chan and Reddit "sleuths" that were described as "crowdsourcing investigations", as I didn't believe that they met WP:RELEVANCE and Wikipedia:NPOV guidelines. I would argue that they give a disproportionate emphasis to marginal details about the public response (which may be better suited in tabloid magazine - WP:NOTGOSSIP). If you add them back, however, I will not remove them again, although I would appreciate the feedback of other editors.
I did also remove the photo, "An example of the public hybristophilia on social media," which is described as "Own work: a collage using an undated photo released by the New York Police Department." It had already been agreed upon not to include images of the suspect, and this wasn't a social media image, as described, but a "collage" created by a Wikimedia contributor using a photo that may or may not be properly licensed. See description: "This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source and copyright information for all work incorporated in this file is missing." "Unless this issue is resolved, the file will be deleted seven days after this notice was added and the uploader was notified on 9 December 2024." For these reasons, I do, in fact, believe that it would be inappropriate to include this image.
I believe that I simply followed the existing consensus and instructions listed in the note on the page (which I did not add) - "DO NOT ADD PHOTOGRAPHS OR PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION OF ANY SUSPECT WITHOUT SEEKING TALK PAGE CONSENSUS. WP:BLPCRIME SETS A HIGH BAR FOR THE ADDITION OF SUCH MATERIAL."
I agree that I should probably make my edit descriptions clearer and ask consensus before making major changes. I also agree that I should not have written the word, "ITSELF", in all CAPs in one of my edit summaries. At the same time, I have tried to be cordial (e.g. "Let's make sure only to include relevant information"). I'm sorry for the times that I haven't been. I also apologize for not directly discussing my concerns about some of the content in the article's Reaction section in the talk page before removing them.
@Kire1975, I do not have a personal grudge against you. I hope that we can resolve this cordially. I will be more mindful going forward. Thanks again.
Finally, much of the feedback that I've received for my contributions to this page have been positive (I've included an example below). I hope that some of my contributions have also been helpful.
------------------
Thanks for your help on the Brian Thompson American healthcare system paragraph!
Ah, this really is a beautiful moment in wikipedia history. Everyone coming together to write the most thorough article possible on this event Snokalok (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the cordial response here. It is very cordial. I also understand why you would think that the Timothee Chalamet reference might be [[WP:NOTGOSSIP] but with more context, I believe it is 100% WP:DUE. The public reaction to it is extraordinary and notable. I'll be adding WP:RS at the end of the comment to back up my theory, but it is plain as the tip of my nose that the the shooter lookalike contest in Washington Square Park is a direct callback to the Timothee Chalamet lookalike contest in Washington Square Park that went viral in non-tabloid media just a few weeks ago. Other reliable, secondary and verifiable RS about the circus-like public reaction include but are not limited to:
Thanks again. Your cordial responsde might actually be a historic event in my career as a Wikipedian who sometimes picks fights with other editors, but I probably shouldn't poke the bear anymore. I'm definitely not trying to take anything personal against you either. I hope this helps the page. It's very late here. I gotta go to bed. Kire1975 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2024 (3)
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Change "The suspect was described as being "extremely camera savvy,"[45] and as of December 8 has not been apprehended.[4]" to "The suspect was described as being "extremely camera savvy,"[45] and as of December 9 has not been apprehended.[4]" 49.145.161.34 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A libelous image was inserted into the article that implied that Bernie Sanders supported the assassination of Brian Thompson. This has been removed under WP: BLP policy. The consensus is to not add any pictures outside of the crime scene for now. I agree. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Sources.
Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion
I see a section that claims the brutal murder of this man as "widely" celebrated with no sources whatsoever and seems extremely biased to me. Zefalls (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You will not be "instantly banned" for removing uncited material. It's in Wikipedia's policies at WP:V that "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". It's possible someone may disagree and restore it, and then a discussion on the talk page can take place about finding reliable sources and making sure the text aligns with the sources. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs20:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I concur with other editors that social media posts should not be included in great detail. Nor should he be described as a "folk hero" in the introduction. People are confusing Wikipedia with activism here. My personal opinions aside, the article comes across as predominantly positive about him being assassinated, which is greatly worrying. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Right well since you’re new, I’ll say wikipedia has policies on notability and POV edits thar I’d encourage you to read, and the vast majority of editors on this page over the last several days have contributed to sections detailing the public response, so clearly consensus is in favor of its inclusion. Saying you think it shouldn’t be included because you don’t like that it platforms a popular POV you disagree with is called POVPUSHING and wikipedia has rules against it. Snokalok (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Worrying or not, covering public response to this is part of the story. As I recall, the article didn't describe him as a folk hero, just said that he had been described as a folk hero - a source-able claim. HelenaBertrand (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@RomanianObserver41 I agree that previous versions of this article were grossly biased/activistic, but as of right now it seems to be in a better position, factually stating that social media is reveling while the family is mourning. ypn^221:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Photograph?
Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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)
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)
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Robert Pape, an expert in political violence at the University of Chicago, told The Guardian that the response of online commentators was indicative of Americans' growing acceptance of violence to settle civil disputes.
I don't think this is true, and the quote ignores the use of violence throughout American history, particularly in regards to the Gilded Age (which I think is already discussed). This is part of the American philosophy of the four boxes of liberty, which have been part of the culture of America since the beginning. Frederick Douglass: "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box." Douglass did not mention the soap box, as he appears to referring to the use of three boxes by Stephen Decatur Miller. America has always been a violent society, from the time of the colonial conquest and the subjugation of the indigenous people, to the time of the American Revolution and the war against the British, to the settlement of the American frontier during the Wild West, to the Civil War, to the running battles and skirmishes over workers rights, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, and the right to healthcare. There is literally no sense of a "growing acceptance of violence" occurring. This is something that Pape made up. All the crime statistics shows that violent crime is at the lowest levels in all of American history. Given the easy to prove, erroneous nature of Pape's opinion, I recommend either removing it or clarifying it with a relevant quote about the "four boxes", provided it is directly relevant to this topic from the source. Leaving Pape's opinion here without question is a form of misinformation. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Ultimately Robert Pape expressed an opinion to the guardian, an arguably incorrect opinion, but an opinion repeated by MSM never-the-less. Wikipedia is not construing this opinion as fact, just saying that he said it. I don't think its our place to insert our own opinions to the contrary unless these opinions have proper citations. Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish.22:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The idea that there is a growing acceptance of violence to settle civil disputes in America is Pape's idea. He refers to it as "violent populism". His opinion should be rewritten to make it clear that this is his personal pet topic. If you look at what he has said about this topic on the past, he appears to classify the alleged shooter in the same category as the Tree of Life shooter, the El Paso shooter, the Buffalo shooting, the Pelosi attack, and the two Trump assassination attempts, as if they are all the same phenomenon. They are clearly not. More to my point, Pape speaks to actual numbers. He says 6% of Americans supported the use of force to restore Trump to the presidency while 8% supported the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president. None of this, I repeat once again, none of this compares to the political violence of the past. Violent crime has fallen by 50% in the last 30 years or so. While I'm not so fond of citing Steven Pinker due to some controversy, this is an area of research he has published widely about. When seen in this light, Pape's idea, particularly in regard to this incident, has no merit. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Suspect Socials
Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Seems like we shouldn't have it added until the suspect is at very least arrested for the crime in the article, at which point a more full profile of him will likely be added as in other "Killing of ..." articles. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
That rule merely states that articles should not make a determination of the suspect's guilt, not that information about suspects shouldn't be included. Reliable sources are clear that it is highly probable that his beliefs and life history are why he committed the killing. The suspect had a manifesto. To not mention this in the article is madness. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
He hasn't been charged with committing the killing yet though, so we shouldn't be building out a profile of someone who is currently just a person of interest, however likely it may seem to be that it's him. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs21:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
It is highly probable that his beliefs and life history are why he committed the killing That's the problem though, we don't know if the person arrested is the killer. We should wait for more details. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The POI uploaded a YouTube video 2 hours ago. It is titled "The Truth", with a 60 second countdown. It says "If you see this, I'm already under arrest", and ends with "Soon... Dec 11th". The channel was created in January. This is related to my previous thread on WP:BLPCRIME, but this feels much more... important than social media. I've attached the video below, there is no MSM coverage as far as I'm aware yet. I do not believe this should be added to the article as it could still be a hoax (if the channel was hacked or renamed), but everyone should be aware of it.
It's most likely just a renamed account. The video was uploaded after his arrest too. Not saying its not his account but unlikely. Maybe wayback machine can help. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Taken down "already". Pretty sad to see something like that was possible in the first place, I mean this is supposed to be "quantum computing" Google. Looks like someone tried to capitalize on it, in a rather literal sense. Way too easy. Wouldn't be surprised if the rubbish reached half a million views even in that time. -2001:9E8:6AA5:4B00:A00:27FF:FE34:1184 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Man being questioned in Pennsylvania found w/ gun, silencer, and fake New Jersey ID
Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Article. Is this worth adding? Even if it doesn't end up being the assailant, it is significant as the first person being questioned in relation to the killing. Chronoste (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
We are not a tabloid trying to sell papers, and we don't have the urgency than news media have. Someone being arrested for gun charges and being identified by NY police as a person of interest does not seem sufficient per WP:BLP to name him as The Suspected Assailant. If he is formally charged, in court, then we could add that fact, stating that he is just charged, not that he is the culprit. Even if someone is convicted, best practice would be to sayy he was convicted, or found guilty, as opposed to saying he IS guilty. Edison (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Copyright of image
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Regarding the endlessly repeated bar chart showing UH's 32% "claim" denial rate -you might want to consider where those figures came from, and the fact that they're essentially guesstimates since information on private plans is kept confidential [1]. You might also want to take note of the difference between a "claim" (request for payment for a treatment already received) and a prior authorization request (pre-approval for a treatment not yet received)[2]. One suspects that the people trying to link UH's "claim" denials to denial of medical care aren't aware of this distinction.
I was also surprised to see mention of the suspect's "right wing" views. Whatever he's said against 'wokeism' or DEI, this is not the sort of ideology that inspires someone to execute a health insurance executive. Considering right wingers haven't spent the last 30 odd years railing against healthcare industries, I fail to see how these other views are related to this particular murder. Jonathan f1 (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skynxnex (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Done added source from CNN. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus before taking any actions and doing so -
