Jump to content

Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Remove Redundant Information About Crooks Being a Registered Republican, or Add Info About Him Donating to a Left Wing PAC Wherever He's Stated to be a Registered Republican

He's stated to be a Republican in two places:

"Since September 2021, he was a registered Republican voter in Pennsylvania."

"He registered as a Republican."

However, the important information about him donating to ActBlue is only at the bottom of the article, even though it's significant that he donated to a PAC established for serving left-leaning and Democratic nonprofits and politicians, which is the opposite of serving Republican and conservative interests.

The information about him donating to ActBlue should be included wherever he's stated to be a Republican to avoid glossing over his political activity, since being a registered Republican does not mean that Crooks' viewpoints aligned with Republicans or conservatives (clearly it didn't, given that he donated to a left wing PAC).

Monetary political donations clearly have more weight than a registered political status, especially when he attempted to assassinate the current Republican nominee for president while donating to the opposing party's PAC. MightyLebowski (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The two places this is mentioned — in the lead and in the last section — state both the donation and the registration. In the lead:
In January 2021, he donated $15 to voter turnout group using a Democratic platform. Since September 2021, he was a registered Republican voter in Pennsylvania.
And in the Political activities section:
On January 20, 2021, at the age of 17, he donated $15 to the Progressive Turnout Project, a liberal voter turnout group, through the Democratic Party donation platform ActBlue. His donation was made the same day that President Biden was sworn into office. According to the Progressive Turnout Project, he made the donation in response to an email about "tuning into" the inauguration; he was unsubscribed from the group's mailing list in 2022.
Crooks had been registered to vote since September 2021, when he turned 18. He registered as a Republican. He voted only once, in the 2022 midterm elections.
Is there something else you are referring to? C F A 💬 02:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I mean that the name of the PAC, ActBlue, should be specifically included here e.g.:
"In January 2021, he donated $15 to the left-wing PAC ActBlue using a Democratic platform."
i.e. it's not clear that he donated to ActBlue in this excerpt, or that ActBlue is a left-wing PAC dedicated to serving Democratic politicians. The specific group that Crooks donated to should be included in the initial reference to it.
I read the current version as saying "Crooks donated to some voter turnout group using a platform provided by the Democrats". It's just unnecessarily convoluted and doesn't specifically convey that Crooks donated to ActBlue, and that ActBlue is a left-leaning PAC that serves the interests of Democrats.
Also, the current version is not grammatically correct:
"In January 2021, he donated $15 to voter turnout group using a Democratic platform."
It should be:
"In January 2021, he donated $15 to a voter turnout group using a Democratic platform."
But I think that this sentence should be totally changed to my proposed edit at the top. MightyLebowski (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The lead was recently changed in this edit. I have no opinion about how it should be worded. Courtesy ping: FallingGravity. C F A 💬 03:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The fact that the "voter turnout group" is ActBlue needs to be specifically included, otherwise it's unclear which group is being referenced.
It's also inaccurate to refer to ActBlue as a "voter turnout group" when the ActBlue Wikipedia page says that it's a left-leaning PAC, which serves multiple purposes, including getting Democratic politicians elected, not just voter turnout.
I don't get the reasoning for saying "voter turnout group" over left-wing PAC, which is the accurate description that is already in the ActBlue Wikipedia page. MightyLebowski (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be a general overview of the article, more details are included later in the article. Before it said he 'donated to a Democratic platform' which could mean anything, so I added a few more details. FallingGravity 06:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's our responsibility to decide whether him being a registered Republican matters more or less than donating to a progressive cause. Hella say hella (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't neccessarily get your logic either. I don't personally think one matters more than the other.
A lot of people are really trying to put him down in one camp, including here, and I think we have a responsibility to ensure we don't let our personal opinions/views/biases dictate what we record in this article. Hella say hella (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, which is why I said to include his ActBlue donation wherever it's mentioned that he's a registered Republican. But realistically, registering as a certain political status doesn't have as much weight as his actual political activity i.e. registering as a Republican, but donating to Democrats, would indicate that Crooks' monetary support is behind Democrats. Neither is indicative of how he voted, but one (the donation to ActBlue) is indicative of who his political activity supports (Democrats in this case). MightyLebowski (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha, I think it's fine mentioning both those, as they were both reported by reliable sources, and sure, even next to each other to ensure the reader doesn't think we are favoring one or the other.
Curious, do you think we should add in early life and education that some classmates describe him as conservative, others indifferent to politics? Hella say hella (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Like above, no. This is WP: HEARSAY. KlayCax (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm new so I'm still trying to understand how everything works :).
I don't get why the following is allowed in the article then?
"Classmates and school officials characterized him as quiet, with classmates saying he was often bullied for various reasons, including his quiet demeanor, body odor, and for wearing camouflage hunting outfits and surgical masks to school."
Shouldn't all that be removed? Hella say hella (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We have two exceptionally weak data points about his politics. He donated 15 bucks to a Democratic affiliated group in early 2021. That's roughly the price of two McDonald's cheeseburger meals. Later that year, he checked the "Republican" box when registering to vote, which is evidence of very little. These are very thin reeds and someone with strongly held political beliefs would leave far more evidence in today's social media world, unless they were deliberately trying to hide their politics. And everyone knows that it is entirely possible for a young person's worldview and politics to shift dramatically from age 17 to 20. The surprising thing is that we know so little about this person's thinking eight plus days after the shooting. My personal theory is that he probably had a hermit-like personality and was disgusted by all prominent politicians. But that is just my preliminary conclusion and perhaps we will learn much more about his thinking soon. The bottom line is that these factors are so weak and frail that they should not be over-emphasized. I think they should only be mentioned once and not in the lead. Including them in the lead implies that they are "really important" and we have no evidence that they are of any importance. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I pretty much 100% agree with you @Cullen328. Hella say hella (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
BTW, I lean on the side of not including what his classmates said :). I just don't get how some is allowed, and others isn't. Hella say hella (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sad to say im not surprised at how this is all being creatively edited. 67.176.231.225 (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I am pretty sure this was disproven to be a person in his 60s with the same name donating to ActBlue, which adds up considering what people said of him Jerry (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Matthew’s Heritage

Just wanted to ask if Matthew’s heritage (Scottish-Jewish) could be included since I’ve seen a lot of speculation about his ethnicity. Clarifying this in his article would help avoid any potential discrimination/accusation of unrelated parties. MountainEnjoyer (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not with that reference. Even without looking into the reputation of the site, it's a poorly written article with all sorts of obvious errors and 'factual looseness'. Reliable sourcing is a fundamental starting point. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand the logic? If anything, mentioning he's Jewish (if he actually turns out to be) would likely only fuel far right conspiracies.
Anyways, I think simply saying "American man" should suffice. Hella say hella (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Can we start referring to the Boston bomber as an American man without mentioning anything about his heritage ? Mathew’s heritage is an integral part of his identity and should be mentioned in his early life synopsis. We can’t obscure the truth in wikipedia articles to cater for those who may use it to spin conspiracy theories. 47.187.43.223 (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a terrible comparison.
But hey, if you have a reliable source that has his "heritage", provide it.
You're right, though, it doesn't matter if it fuels right wing conspiracies, I agree, I was responding to: Clarifying this in his article would help avoid any potential discrimination/accusation of unrelated parties. Hella say hella (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Crooks grandfather was Lutheran - no Judaism at all. https://www.neelyfuneralhome.com/obituary/Norman-Crooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.86.218 (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Add the BlackRock ad reference

This is being discussed in #RfC: BlackRock advertisement. No need to open more sections. C F A 💬 00:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

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)

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)

FBI uncovered social media account

"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, minus 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7f6a:800:7926:13a3:d8fb:454a (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

References to his passions on politics and hatred of politicians

In 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)

Why is the FBI Investigating a Pro-Biden Social Media Account Associated with Crooks Still not Added?

This was reported weeks ago:

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-shooting-hearing-fbi-secret-service-assassination-attempt-senate/#post-update-cceefc18

and yet there is still no mention of the FBI investigating the Gab account "EpicMicrowave", including sending an official Emergency Disclosure Request (EDR) to Gab, where they explicitly say that they're investigating the account's ties to Crooks, which is overtly pro-Biden. This is important context regarding the political beliefs of the shooter. MightyLebowski (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

What happened to Crooks' body?

I have seen almost nothing about what happened to Crooks' body. There was a mention on (unreliable) Twitter that it had been cremated. 102.70.12.167 (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Crook's picture

I propose we update Crook's picture by a still of the recent Tomko footage, such as this one. We can sort the permission in a few days by contacting the owner of the picture rights. Its a much more recent than the current one which look like Crooks was almost a child.Forich (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works with regards to using potentially copyrighted media. We'll need to find a way to contact the owner to grant permission before we can use it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your input Kcmastrpc, the Wikipedia rules regarding images are [[1]], and the implementation procedures for non-free ones is [[2]]. I think from my reading of the non-free image rules that editors can simultaneously discuss the picture and follow the steps. The first step is determining the copyright license template which identifies the type of copyright that the original work is under license. I'm on it.Forich (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If you can obtain permission that’d be fantastic, an image of the perp shortly prior to the attack would be much more appropriate for this article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Blackrock

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)

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)

@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

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)


Should Crooks's appearance in a BlackRock advertisement be mentioned in this article? 12:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes

  • 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)

No

  • 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)
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

• 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_Matthew_Crooks/Archive_3&oldid=1251183198"