Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Matthew Crooks article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 7 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for merging with Attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 20, 2024. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was WP:SNOW-opposed. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Blackrock
editNo mention in the article that he was an unpaid background actor in a Blackrock ad? https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/business/blackrock-commercial-included-trump-shooter/index.html 142.67.134.132 (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article used to mention it, not sure who removed it or why. There definitely used to be a discussion in talk about it too, unless I'm mistaken. Hella say hella (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I removed it because it's entirely irrelevant. —Alalch E. 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- all good. agreed. Hella say hella (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Irrelevant by what measure? 142.67.134.132 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- looked through the archives, looks like there was a consensus to keep it in the article as noteworthy, then one editor decided no. 142.67.134.132 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I removed it because it's entirely irrelevant. —Alalch E. 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@User:CFA Hello. In the context of this conversation and with respect to this, do you have any response to my following comment about how to treat the BlackRock advertisement in this article:
The conspiracy theory that BlackRock planned the assassination does not belong in this article. This article is a straight-fact biography of Crooks. It doesn't have a "Conspiracy theories" section. Coverage thereof belongs at the article about the event, as their emergence is a noteworthy phenomenon that followed the event. The fact that he appeared in the advertisement is only relevant as the background to the conspiracy theory, it isn't relevant for understanding the topic of Thomas Matthew Crooks as a biographical subject. The sole fact that he appeared in an ad as a high school student, filmed at his high school, doesn't say anything noteworthy about him, and the sources that report on this fact don't say that it has any relevance for understanding him. The BlackRock conspiracy theory is covered at the assassination attempt article. In this article, inclusion only of the fact that he was in the advertisement would be an instance of collecting all available facts about a topic just because they are verifiable, and that is not how we write articles. I oppose including this.
Sincerely—Alalch E. 10:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying but the BlackRock information was not included in the context of the conspiracy theory. It is just a fact. Whether or not people develop conspiracy theories based on that fact is irrelevant to his biography. There have been many in-depth, full-length articles by reliable sources (see: CNN, Reuters, CBS, Business Insider, The Hill, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc.) covering the BlackRock commercial. It would be undue to ommit it entirely, but also undue to have a whole paragraph on it. Two sentences seems reasonable to me. Not including it solely because the fact has generated conspiracy theories, is, in my opinion, leading towards original research. Since the fact appears both in full-length articles in reliable sources and "profiles" of the shooter, it should be included in his biography. It is just like including his winning of a "$500 star award" which has been covered extensively in reliable sources, but has little relevance to his notability or anything else. C F A 💬 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging other editors who have shown an interest in this (see past discussion; diff): @TrangaBellam, Bohbye, and Kcmastrpc: Unlike what the IP above says, I would rather say that there is a consensus not to keep this information in the article —Alalch E. 10:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since this topic will undoubtedly come up again in the future, I've started an RfC to help settle the debate and get a consensus that editors can refer back to when needed. Some1 (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC: BlackRock advertisement
edit- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should Crooks's appearance in a BlackRock advertisement be mentioned in this article? 12:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes
edit- Yes: per my comment above:
- The BlackRock information was not included in the context of the conspiracy theory. It is just a fact. Whether or not people develop conspiracy theories based on that fact is irrelevant to his biography. There have been many in-depth, full-length articles by reliable sources (see: CNN, Reuters, CBS, Business Insider, The Hill, Bloomberg, WSJ, etc.) covering the BlackRock commercial. It would be undue to ommit it entirely, but also undue to have a whole paragraph on it. Two sentences seems reasonable to me. Not including it solely because the fact has generated conspiracy theories, is, in my opinion, leading towards original research. Since the fact appears both in full-length articles in reliable sources and "profiles" of the shooter, it should be included in his biography. It is just like including his winning of a "$500 star award" which has been covered extensively in reliable sources, but has little relevance to his notability, the shooting, or anything else. C F A 💬 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this. 4.7.198.14 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's gathered significant coverage from reliable sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's been reported by multiple reliable sources, which is ultimately what dictates its relevance. It can and should be mentioned without giving it undue weight, and if it is mentioned by those sources substantially in the context of conspiracy theories about the shooting then that is notable also. Chaste Krassley (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes per CFA. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 21:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes per CFA. It is a fact noted widely in reliable sources. This article has no length concerns at this time. R. G. Checkers talk 04:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
No
edit- No. This is only relevant in the context of the conspiracy theory that BlackRock planned the assassination, and content about this conspiracy theory does not belong in this specific article. This article is a straight-fact biography of Crooks. It doesn't have a "Conspiracy theories" section. Coverage thereof belongs at the article about the event, as their emergence is a noteworthy phenomenon that followed the event. The fact that he appeared in the advertisement is only relevant as the background to the conspiracy theory, it isn't relevant for understanding the topic of Thomas Matthew Crooks as a biographical subject. The sole fact that he appeared in an ad as a high school student, filmed at his high school, doesn't say anything noteworthy about him, and the sources that report on this fact don't say that it has any relevance for understanding him. The BlackRock conspiracy theory is covered at the assassination attempt article. In this article, inclusion only of the fact that he was in the advertisement would be an instance of collecting all available facts about a topic just because they are verifiable, and that is not how we write articles.—Alalch E. 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Not connected to the shooting. WWGB (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- No Per Alalch E. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- No The filming of this advertisement occurred years ago and has no relevance to the subjects notability or his background. WP:NOTEVERYTHING Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- No. Not connected to the shooting. Bohbye (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, there's nothing relevant about being an unpaid person in the background of a commercial as far as I know, other than possible conspiracy connections. Hooples (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- No - I'm sure he also ate tacos at some point and probably rode in a car in more than one occasion, but we don't need to fold in Taco Bell or Ford, either. Outside of reporting about the tangentially related conspiracy theory, it's pointless as biographic material. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- No Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING Lordseriouspig 03:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No per Alach E. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
edit• No. Seems like it's only brought up in relation to a conspiracy (which has it's own section). Other than that, it's no more than a fun fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hella say hella (talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• I believe the same is true for BlackRock, where it should not be listed either, See talk page. Bohbye (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mention that the social media account was ‘gab’ AwesomeGuy2256 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Edit requests must provide the prose for volunteers to insert and provide reliable sources. —Sirdog (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
FBI uncovered social media account
edit"After the shooting, the FBI uncovered a social media account believed to be associated with the shooter, with about 700 comments from 2019 to 2020. The content of the posts was described as antisemitic, anti-immigrant, extreme, and espousing political violence."
In the source for this, it's mentioned the social media account is only "believed to be associated with the shooter" and the investigation team is "still working to verify this account to determine if it did in fact belong to the shooter". It hasn't actually been confirmed to have been Crook's account yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.146.74.135 (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree , Removed. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are reliable sources citing his social media accounts, can we revisit the possibility of adding this info? Forich (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Forich: Conflicting Accounts of Trump Shooter Thomas Crooks' Social Media Emerge:
However, in a post to X, formerly Twitter on Tuesday, Gab CEO Andrew Torba said, "The FBI is now claiming that the Trump shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks had an unspecified 'social media account' in 2019/2020 (when he was 14/15 years old) that posted 'anti-immigrant and anti-semitic' content."
"This is not consistent with Gab's understanding of the shooter's motives based on an Emergency Disclosure Request ("EDR") we received from the FBI last week for the Gab account 'EpicMicrowave' which, based on the content of that EDR, the FBI appeared to think belonged to Thomas Crooks," Torba said. "The story is this: the account for which data was requested was, UNEQUIVOCALLY, pro-Biden and in particular pro-Biden's immigration policy."
"To the best of Gab's knowledge, as of 2021, Crooks was a pro-lockdown, pro-immigration, left-wing Joe Biden supporter," Torba added in his post.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024
editIt is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Thomas Matthew Crooks. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |
Add to end of "Political activities" section:
There is conflicting information on the shooter's online social media presence. The FBI claimed that Crooks may have owned an account that espoused anti-Semitic, anti-immigration ideas, but have not provided any specific details about the platform or account name. The CEO of Gab, Andrew Torba, claimed that Crooks likely owned an account on his platform with the name "EpicMicrowave", which espoused overtly pro-immigration, pro-Biden, and left-wing ideas. Torba's claim was substantiated when he released private communications with the FBI showing an Emergency Disclosure Request (EDR) that specifically mentioned their intent to gather information about "one possible Gab account" associated with Crooks. In the FBI's timeline, Crooks' apparent anti-immigration sentiment was held years prior to his pro-immigration views.
He does not deserve to have his name or a page about him. This should be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.98.176 (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Source:
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-shooting-hearing-fbi-secret-service-assassination-attempt-senate/#post-update-cceefc18 MightyLebowski (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
References to his passions on politics and hatred of politicians
editIn his early life section, I believe the fact that he was passionate about politics and the fact he hated all political figures should be a key note in this section, this was according to a FOX News interview with a former classmate who was in the same grade as Crooks and actually interacted with him in the past, According to the former student, Crooks was “a quiet kid, unless there’s something he’s passionate about, politics being one of them” and he initially described his hatred like “he did not like our politicians […] He showed he disliked all of them, didn’t like any of them.” This student was Hispanic, and when he mentioned to Crooks he liked Trump, Crooks stated it was “kinda stupid” Anthonysici27 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)