It's friday night, lets read wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Thompson_(businessman) (Talk):

A request that this article title be changed to Killing of Brian Thompson is under discussion. Please do not move this article until the discussion is closed.

Show

Talk:Brian Thompson (businessman) > Requested move 4 December 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Brian Thompson (businessman) be renamed and moved to Killing of Brian Thompson.

So at first I thought it would be funner to have the seperate "killing of" page, but after reading the marketplace of ideas WP talk page, I am leaning towards the idea that keeping them together is the right way.

Those who "support" are basically saying there isn't anything to say about him except the manner of his death. These monsters love to keep a low profile.

a few comments from talk

Support or move to murder of Brian Thompson. This was pre-meditated first-degree murder.Arbeiten8

Oppose move. It's a weird way of Wikipedia behaviour to have a bunch of "Killing of ___" articles. The guy was potentially notable by Wikipedia standards (mentioned in the print version of the Wall Street Journal for a fraud investigation regarding his dumping of $15M of stock before a news release of the investigation) but nobody bothered to start the article. ErrorCorrection1

Support per 1E. No credible evidence of notability before his death. CEOs are not presumptively notable. His death is obviously what rings the WP:N bell. In response to those arguing this is premature, it is not. Creating a biographical article w/o clear evidence of notability was premature. We don't keep articles in the hope that evidence of notability will somehow appear in the future. .... -Ad Orientem

Oppose, has notability from being a CEO of a very large healthcare company, and other details such as the DOJ investigation make him notable enough on his own.  53

  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. No, there are sources prior to the event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. No, the subject was the head of a large corporation which is a high profile role.
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. No, the event was significant and the subject's role was central.

Andrew🐉

Killing of Brian Thompson - Wikipedia

Show

Show

Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson > Video

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

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

Killing of Brian Thompson (Talk):

In response to the killing, public officials including Minnesota governor and former Democratic vice president nominee Tim Walz and Senator Amy Klobuchar, expressed dismay and offered condolences to the family. Walz said that he knew Thompson.[32] House representative Dean Phillips wrote that he was "horrified by the assassination of my constituent, Brian Thompson, this morning in NYC and have his family in my prayers."[33]

Thompson's widow, Paulette, released a statement after the killing saying that she and her family are "shattered by the senseless killing" and called her husband an "incredibly loving, generous, talented man" and "incredibly loving father to our two sons".[30] Shortly following the death, two of the houses owned by Thompson’s family were swatted.[34]

👤👥

Both CVS Health, which operates Aetna, and UnitedHealthcare removed photographs and other information about their executive leadership from their websites following Thompson's killing.[35][36] Additionally, the days following Thompson's death saw a surge in inquiries about protective services and security for CEOs and corporate executives, according to Allied Universal.[37] Michael Sherman, the former chief medical officer at Point32Health, justified the concerns of health insurance executives, saying, "It doesn’t seem paranoid to worry that someone who’s had services denied that they may believe are important might be in an emotionally unstable state."[38] Referring to the online response to Thompson's death, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, who runs the Chief Executive Leadership Institute (CELI) at Yale said, "we’ve seen the frightening, uncanny conversion of angry and deranged people."[37]

🏆 🏆 🏆 🏆

After the killing, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association reversed a controversial decision to place time limits on coverage for surgical anesthesia in Connecticut, New York, and Missouri.[39]

Some other debates:

  • 30_to_50_Feral_PAWGs [she/her]
    ·
    19 days ago

    Thompson's widow, Paulette, ... and called her husband an "incredibly loving, generous, talented man"

    Was... Was that part supposed to be sarcasm?

    • glans [it/its]
      ·
      19 days ago

      My guess is it is based on the anticipation of future legal battles over money.

      There's nothing I have seen that he was anything other than generou$$$ towards his immediate family and I'm sure they will be wanting compensation to make sure his wishes are fulfilled going forward. I know life insurance is typically reduced/eliminated in the case of a suicide but what if you fail to take security precautions even though you keep getting threats? Did he have a responsibility to mitigate potential losses?

      Apparently she was a physiotherapist, if that's true I'm sure the future doesnt look so rosy now widowed.