Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson

Photograph?

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

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)

Yes, I agree that it needs to be expanded based on the ongoing coverage. Firecat93 (talk) 13:00, 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 | Talk 15:20, 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.

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)

Jesus christ. If 700 edits is relatively inexperienced im an infant wtf guninvalid (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree, and I have also tagged this as an improper copy/paste of content. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Infobox photo

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Great, thank you! Adding now. Maximilian775 (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

“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)

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)

"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)

@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)

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)

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)

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 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)

This revision from earlier today contains what I consider to be a far more appropriately-sized version of the section:

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)