|
I added details regarding Crowder's new activities as a leaker of withheld government documents, known as whistleblowing. I added because of the major breaking news that releasing the documents was, at the time, and because Crowder has continued attempting to collect insider documents from other whistleblowers, sine this first event. It took about 18 hours before somebody reverted, with an explanation: "Ungrammatical, improperly sourced and not obviously noteworthy anyway"
This strikes me as the description that I might write, if I simply didn't like the information that was written. (lol) Moreover, the incident apparently is noteworthy enough to have its own section on the incident's page, titled "leaks." So if it IS significant enough to include Crowder's name on that page, is it not correct to be documented on his actual page? It strikes me that it might be more appropriate to consolidate this information here, and not there. This is almost as silly as documenting Crowder's activity on the victim's wiki page. Does that seem correct?
Crowder is now a whistleblower, who leaked sensitive government documents, and got away with it. An activity which he now engages in actively, via what he calls "mug club under cover." His supporters/donors have now reportedly (according to him) donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to him, to support these activities. This on its face is obviously noteworthy, and honestly, deserves much more expansion than the tidbit I started. The source I selected for this particular paragraph is Crowder's words, from his own show. Where he showed the photos of the manifesto that he leaked. If that's not enough/correct sourcing, so be it - but "not obviously noteworthy anyway" ? ArmandTreshi (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Noteworthy things are taken note of in sources unconnected with the subject. Find some, and we can have a conversation about whether it merits inclusion in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- References 44 and 45 from the incident's wiki. Apologies for not knowing how to better copy/paste/link this stuff yet!
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting#cite_note-CNNLeak-47
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting#cite_ref-48 ArmandTreshi (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Neither source refers to Crowder as a 'whistleblower'. They say absolutely nothing about Crowder collecting documents from anyone else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- That is true - those sources do not use the word whistleblower, nor reveal much detail at all. They don't even describe the details of the 3 pages that Crowder released. We know the details of the three pages, because they were released by Crowder, in the youtube link originally provided.
- You now seem to have 3 different points - the noteworthiness, the "whistleblower" wording, and also the specifics of how Crowder collected the documents.
- Crowder has not released details of how he received the information. He did not say whether he received, for example, text messages, emails, or hard-copy prints of the photos. We don't know that exact mechanism. However, in the referenced episode of Crowder's show, he explained that a member of the Nashville PD contacted him with the material. He then published them. In the YouTube link originally referenced.
- We also now know, that the police department conducted investigations of this matter src. In this investigation, they confirmed publicly that the 3 photos specifically published by Crowder were legitimate.
- I don't have an external source for this, but the police department investigation did not reveal the identity of the leaker. Crowder boasts about it on every show - his informant was not caught. Literally since this incident, he has ramped up the whistleblowing activity and become a full scale informant operation. Nashville PD admits that they didn't catch the actual leaker, this is fact, I just don't have an external source to cite.
- The two additional links I reference in previous post validate that indeed <this, is, that> and that the situation is noteworthy.
- If one doesn't agree with the whistleblower wording, that's fine - it is also considered a leak, very technically. The unnamed source of the photos is most technically a whistleblower. Crowder has gone on to begin full scale whistleblowing operations after this event - but, not really the main detail of this whole story. Lol
- I would encourage browsing whistleblowing and other noteworthy whistleblowers, like Snowden. This might help in understanding how Crowder's actions are "whistleblowing."
- Final fun fact: the very original video on Nov 6 where Crowder conducted the leak, is not available on youtube. This link is to the Nov 7 recap episode, re-covering all of the information he leaked. Nov 6 is available behind paywalls, for example on spotify. And, of course, the 3 photos of the manifesto which he leaked, are searchable on google. ArmandTreshi (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Another fun fact. Wikipedia doesn't base content on contributor's personal opinions or analysis. Read WP:NOTFORUM, WP:OR and WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- (edit conflict)This seems to all fall foul of WP:SYNTH. It is not our job to interpret or spin this in ways that Reliable Sources have not. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- That 'final fun fact' was not fun, and was barely a fact, so let's hope it was at least final. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I don't see any reputable sources in the above discussion or in the removed section of the article that suggests this is "obviously noteworthy." Its removal was correct. Elspea756 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Yup. The photos might possibly merit mentioning in the Nashville shooting article, but given the lack of substantive commentary on Crowder's role in this, I can't see any particular merit in including it here. Even articles on bona-fide journalists don't cover every minor story they break, and trying to make this out as some sort of exercise in 'whistleblowing' is absurd. No whistles were blown. No evidence of wrongdoing (beyond a police officer possibly improperly releasing evidence while a court case is ongoing) has been presented. If Crowder wants to represent himself as a whistleblower, he can. Wikipedia is under no obligation to take any notice of such self-serving claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Agreed. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting Crowder's publicity stunts. That he plastered a gigantic watermark on the photos, which is stylistically similar to the trashiest of clickbait and tabloids, demonstrates that it was a publicity stunt intended primarily or exclusively to promote his own brand. There is nothing at all about this which is whistle-blowing. There is no actionable change that would come from releasing this information, and no group or individual is being held accountable by releasing this (except, ironically, by demonstrating the incompetence of the police department which allowed this to happen).
- Crowder has failed to demonstrate, by his own behavior, any concern for the well-being of the living victims of this crime. By contrast, Wikipedia, at least, does have policies regarding living people and specifically regarding crime and victims, and part of those policies prompt us to have the basic decency not to sensationalize these crimes, nor to recklessly perpetuate such sensationalism.
- As with so many of Crowder's publicity stunts that get discussed on this talk page, if there is any encyclopedic value to mentioning it here , I haven't seen it. These flimsy sources are insufficient. Grayfell (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The two links in my very first reply, CNN and the Tennessean. They are the coverage of Crowder's role in this, cited by the Nashville shooting wiki. The new link I just provided to the Tennessean, reporting on a police internal investigation, sparked by the incident of Steven Crowder obtaining unreleased documents.
- To be clear, the specific "whistle that was blown" was the previously unreleased detail that the shooter had racial motivations; and the ability to read their writing directly, giving the public an insight to their mental state. No details of their motivation was known or released. This is the detail that was being withheld, and was released by Crowder. A detail which I did not believe was relevant in the main article, but is true.
- May I also please add this small detail - I am keenly aware that this page is controversial, and obviously has individuals who have decided to protect it. I suspected I would be rebuked, and I was correct! I am no vandal, troll, associated with Crowder, or other. I saw this obvious lacking detail, and figured that I could easily improve by adding. I have a personal fascination with espionage and whistleblowing, and its modern form (steganography and internet privacy, privacy in healthcare, reporting harassment in the workplace, called reporting, to dead-drops).
- In one respect, what the leaker did is considered domestic espionage. The Federal government certainly investigated. Crowder is certainly now under complete surveillance. And yet, somehow, his sources are still protected. It is baffling! I figured this would be a fun project, and it turns out, I was correct. :) Will give this a rest for a few days, see what else shakes loose, and revisit. I can foresee a future where Crowder is arrested and jailed, for refusing to give up his sources, if he keeps trying to behave like a whistleblower. Would that then be worthy of adding to this page? Lol, Thanks! ArmandTreshi (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
|
.svg){kind=small}
