Talk:Thomas Matthew Crooks

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)

• 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

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)