Talk:Steven Crowder

Whistleblowing

WP:NOTFORUM. We do not base content on contributors personal analysis, and accordingly, this has no place here. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jared Monroe

Should there be any mention of Crowder's dispute with his former employee Jared Monroe? Monroe recently published a video accusing Crowder of "legal abuse" and other allegations.

https://www.mediaite.com/media/ex-steven-crowder-staffer-claims-hes-being-legally-abused-after-quitting-toxic-and-abusive-show/ AstralNomad (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No. None of these people are relevant and it's debatable whether this page should exist at all. AcademicPerfection (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who needs to mention their IQ should not be trusted with anything there's no reason why this page shouldn't exist someone with with your high of an IQ should be able to figure it out but yet you didn't literally there's people who just played like five rolls in TV history and shows nobody watched and Got Wikipedia pages but yeah you don't think he deserves a Wikipedia page despite him being an actor in a well-known kid TV show a well known political commentator a YouTuber with a pretty big following oh I know is because you don't agree with him politically so it's easier to pretend like he doesn't exist you know exactly what someone with such a high IQ would do they won't actually think about the other person's arguments they were just dismissed them because it's easier to do that just like you will probably be scanning this for the smallest grammatical error are you sure you did get this IQ test from a trash bin 149.154.10.159 (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

To add to article

In an effort to be more properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention this lawsuit? Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/man-misidentified-texas-mass-shooter-sues-right-wing-influencers-1235003773/ 98.123.38.211 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Nick Fuentes

Crowder recently conducted a sycophantic interview with Nick Fuentes. That strikes me as something that is relevant enough to be worth adding to the article. ~2025-39150-46 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Only if it struck publishers of secondary sources as relevant. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Conservative or fascist

Given Crowder’s recent advocacy for fascism (see his YouTube “the case for fascism”) is it accurate to describe him as a conservative commentator? Would it be more accurate to describe him as a fascist activist or commentator? ~2026-42289-38 (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

We can't use his YouTube video as a source. Have any Reliable Sources covered it? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Would “self-described fascist” be more appropriate? ~2026-42289-38 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I would support that wording provided there is solid Reliable Sourcing for it but you know that a lot of people won't like that idea so the sources had better be absolutely impeccable or it isn't going to fly. I mean, they are within their rights to challenge it as it is a pretty extreme description. The sources have to be unarguable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Docktuh: @DonnieNova:: I do not think the video is due without secondary sourcing. Also, editors should not be analyzing or interpreting primary source material, either. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sibshops I wasn't doing WP:OR, that's what came out of his mouth. Docktuh (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Only if he has a video directly referring to himself as a fascist DonnieⓃⓄⓋⒶ (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if the video shows that Crowder made those statements, that does not necessarily mean the material should be included, per WP:VNOT. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

A news site has since written an article on the video. Crowder refers to Pinochet and Franco as fascists here (some scholarly debate over whether over this is the case) and is praising them as opposed to Hitler/Mussolini. Regardless of the accuracy of Crowder's historiography, he is clearly expressing positive attitudes towards fascism, which is both unusual and noteworthy. Vosotros32 (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that this supports inclusion of the fascist label. The article says he is distancing himself from fascism, as well.

"And just to be clear, this does not mean that I am supportive of or justifying everyone in the fascist response,” Crowder added. “That’s not what I’m saying. I’m trying to provide you with some historical context.”

I also don't see Hitler or Mussolini in the article. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vosotros32: I believe this quote: "Crowder praised the dictatorships of..." is sourced to the sub-headline. Headlines are generally not usable per WP:HEADLINES. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @MagicatthemovieS:, since he edited that as well. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me or if you are just alerting me to this conversation. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Just alerting you since you edited the sentence under discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Crowder&diff=prev&oldid=1370010639 ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Youtube video link

@Matitya Loran: I don't think we can use a self-published source in a biography of a living person when it discusses third parties per WP:BLPSELFPUB. The uploaded video discusses wikipedia, so we will need a secondary source to analyze his claims and provide context. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The sole statement being made there is that Crowder criticized Wikipedia. The YouTube link demonstrates that. It’s not a commentary on the merits or drawbacks of his criticism Matitya Loran (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but analysis of what Crowder's video is saying should come from a secondary source. Editors can't independently interpret primary source material, but we can cite reliable sources which interpret it.

Another reason secondary sources are used is to help determine if something due, or worthy to include. If secondary sources don't cover his video or criticism, wikipedia generally shouldn't either. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Is your argument that Crowder’s criticism of Wikipedia is irrelevant or is it that Crowder’s video criticizing Wikipedia isn’t a good source? Since those aren’t the same thing. Matitya Loran (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources do both. They help establish if something is due to include, and help editors interpret primary sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m familiar with the utility of secondary sources but (in this context) the latter isn’t relevant because if Crowder’s criticisms are good or bad isn’t relevant to the fact that he made said criticisms. Matitya Loran (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Even if we aren't on the same page about secondary sources interpreting the video, it sounds like you agree WP:DUE is relevant here. Would you be okay with removing the material on that? ◦ Sibshops (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

So, you’re positing that because so few people have written about Crowder’s criticism of Wikipedia, said criticism is irrelevant to the Wikipedia page. Is that an accurate summation? Matitya Loran (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

@Matitya Loran Hiya, please don't add the YouTube video of Crowder criticizing Wikipedia yet, until a consensus is reached. The reason the Crowder YouTube video isn't reliable is because it's from YouTube.com, see WP:RSPYT. If you can find a news article or some other reliable source talking about his criticisms of Wikipedia (aka a secondary sources), then you are freely welcome to add the information. If a secondary source about Crowder’s criticism of Wikipedia is found then it can be added to the article! Not sure how you got "the criticism is irrelevant" from the above discussion though. 1timeuse75 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Because for the fact that Crowder criticized Wikipedia, the video of Crowder criticizing Wikipedia is (or ought to be) a good source. If the argument is that Crowder having criticized Wikipedia is irrelevant to Crowder’s Wikipedia page, then that that’s a fair argument Matitya Loran (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if I follow. Yes it's a video of Crowder criticizing Wikipedia, but that doesn't make it "a good source" because again, it's from YouTube, which is not reliable see here --> WP:RSPYT. "If the argument"... No that's not my argument. 1timeuse75 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn’t be reliable as a source of actual criticism of Wikipedia but it’s definitely reliable for the claim that Crowder criticized Wikipedia Matitya Loran (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

You're technically correct, however Wikipedia prioritizes secondary source over primary sources. The video is a primary source. 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I found two secondary sources for Crowder criticism of Wikipedia [1] [2]. I believe this is enough to add to the article. I don't want to create a new section exclusively on Wikipedia, per OVERSECTION. 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, where in the article should it be put? Matitya Loran (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

I've added the info in the Louder with Crowder section. I would still like a second opinion to double check that I've done this correctly. 1timeuse75 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)