Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks

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

Blackrock

[edit]

No 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I removed it because it's entirely irrelevant. —Alalch E. 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all good. agreed. Hella say hella (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant by what measure? 142.67.134.132 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.
There is a weak consensus against mentioning his appearance in a Blackrock ad on this page. Despite coverage in reliable sources, editors feel that this information is an irrelevant detail not suitable for inclusion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree with this. 4.7.198.14 (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (talkcontribs) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

[edit]

Mention that the social media account was ‘gab’ AwesomeGuy2256 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree , minus Removed. WWGB (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

[edit]

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.


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)[reply]

Add the BlackRock ad reference

[edit]

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.


He was featured in a BlackRock ad for his high school. Not sure why it’s not listed in personal life section. 4.7.198.14 (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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